Datasets:

stanfordnlp

/

SHP

like 275

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggd29mh

ggdk9md

Well, duh.

Yea, this is why I chose not to do a postdoc after my PhD. Academic research is just a hamster wheel where you work 90+ hrs/week and successful outcomes are dictated more by luck than hard work/knowledge.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggdjkmt

gge5ze5

I'm not even a scientist/academic, yet seeing all the "postdoc subhuman trash lolol" memes in academic groups I'm somehow not surprised by the OP.

Postdocs should be abolished. It also doesn't help that tonnes of them were endowed in the 70s and the money wasn't invested well so stipends that were generous in 1980 and adequate through the 90s are fucking paltry 30 years later.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

gge5ze5

ggd29mh

Postdocs should be abolished. It also doesn't help that tonnes of them were endowed in the 70s and the money wasn't invested well so stipends that were generous in 1980 and adequate through the 90s are fucking paltry 30 years later.

Well, duh.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggfid42

ggem0xs

I was so looking forward to postdocing — more money! No teaching! No classes! — but the reality is so much harder than I imagined. Being on a 2-yr contract and constantly looking for jobs while also trying to write the best papers of my career is exhausting. Coupled with a miserable job market I just feel a deep hopelessness.

It now feels like these studies keep on getting done until a false negative shows up then hooray we’ve solved the issue

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggdjkmt

ggfid42

I'm not even a scientist/academic, yet seeing all the "postdoc subhuman trash lolol" memes in academic groups I'm somehow not surprised by the OP.

I was so looking forward to postdocing — more money! No teaching! No classes! — but the reality is so much harder than I imagined. Being on a 2-yr contract and constantly looking for jobs while also trying to write the best papers of my career is exhausting. Coupled with a miserable job market I just feel a deep hopelessness.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggezmzo

ggfid42

it is true. Job security is essential. 2 years here 2 years there buy if you suck well or can eat your ego you maybe can be assistant professor

I was so looking forward to postdocing — more money! No teaching! No classes! — but the reality is so much harder than I imagined. Being on a 2-yr contract and constantly looking for jobs while also trying to write the best papers of my career is exhausting. Coupled with a miserable job market I just feel a deep hopelessness.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggfid42

ggd29mh

I was so looking forward to postdocing — more money! No teaching! No classes! — but the reality is so much harder than I imagined. Being on a 2-yr contract and constantly looking for jobs while also trying to write the best papers of my career is exhausting. Coupled with a miserable job market I just feel a deep hopelessness.

Well, duh.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggfid42

ggew99s

I was so looking forward to postdocing — more money! No teaching! No classes! — but the reality is so much harder than I imagined. Being on a 2-yr contract and constantly looking for jobs while also trying to write the best papers of my career is exhausting. Coupled with a miserable job market I just feel a deep hopelessness.

Yup, no surprise there. I recieved an insane amount of sexism at my first postdoc. It was only a 14 month position, and it started 6 months in, so I just kept my head down and finished it. My second postdoc of course has a little, because that's kind of how academia is, but it's at a level that's doable. I did also recieve xenophobia a lot during my second postdoc. Most of that was outside of the institute though, by the general public.... blah!

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggem0xs

ggdjkmt

It now feels like these studies keep on getting done until a false negative shows up then hooray we’ve solved the issue

I'm not even a scientist/academic, yet seeing all the "postdoc subhuman trash lolol" memes in academic groups I'm somehow not surprised by the OP.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggem0xs

ggd29mh

It now feels like these studies keep on getting done until a false negative shows up then hooray we’ve solved the issue

Well, duh.

kg7hag

askacademia_train

Postdocs under pressure: long hours and a lack of job security, combined with workplace bullying and discrimination, are forcing many to consider leaving science, finds Nature’s inaugural survey of postdoctoral researchers. There is a lot of relevant information here for people in various stages of their academic career, so I wanted to share it with the community: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03235-y

ggew99s

ggezmzo

Yup, no surprise there. I recieved an insane amount of sexism at my first postdoc. It was only a 14 month position, and it started 6 months in, so I just kept my head down and finished it. My second postdoc of course has a little, because that's kind of how academia is, but it's at a level that's doable. I did also recieve xenophobia a lot during my second postdoc. Most of that was outside of the institute though, by the general public.... blah!

it is true. Job security is essential. 2 years here 2 years there buy if you suck well or can eat your ego you maybe can be assistant professor

bwptjv

askacademia_train

New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.

epzcvme

epzencx

I agree with everything except a *Very Hard Disagree* On "shorter papers" in biology as an issue. At least in my field papers are now *gigantic* and the smallest publishable unit is the equivalent of 3-5 papers from 25 years ago. And what used to be 3 papers spread over 6 years (concept/problem isolation, innovation, and finally molecular/genetic mechanism) are now one single paper because without mechanism nowadays you might as well just publish your data on Facebook (sarcasm but...). As far as author lists growing, I think that is understandable because papers have to explain so much now there could easily be 20 different experimental techniques used (including in silico). So author lists include all of the people who had the expertise to do those different experiments quickly and reliably. It's difficult for one lab to produce to all of the different kinds of data needed to tell some stories in biology today so there are a lot of collaborating authors. More data = more authors. And as far as gaming the system, I know I'll get down voted for saying this, but this is actually a case where journal impact and citations/paper matters - a short paper written to pad a resume will not get published in a high impact journal, and a dozen short papers with no citations in low impact journals could also say something. I'm not disagreeing that our metrics suck. But it feels like surely the papers are not shorter *and* with more authors now compared to 20 years ago?

There are quite a few interesting figures here but none of it supports the stated thesis. This Goodhart's "Law" (which is really just a vague quip some guy made once) supposes that metrics lose utility once people start exploiting them. In this case that would mean that research metric success has become decoupled with "real" research success. In essence, to provide evidence to the thesis one would have to show that the two quantities are no longer statistically correlated. *Nothing in this paper remotely demonstrates that. Nothing in it even tries to.* Of course if one WERE to try and do such a thing one would have a bit of a tautological difficulty as how does one assess "real" research success without employing a metric? I suppose one would maybe poll people in a field and ask them who they feel are the top researchers and then see if those people also have the top h-indices or the like (I suspect they largely would, invalidating the thesis). Instead this paper basically just shows that more people are publishing shorter papers , with more co-authors and self-cite more. Again, this does nothing to validate their alleged point.

bwptjv

askacademia_train

New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.

epzaxzj

epzencx

I have a lot of feelings about indices/rankings/ratings which can be summed up as, they're all bullshit, and I think it's a real shame that the ranking craze has taken over the world (obligatory Romer at World Bank shoutout). Mainly my beef is with the fact that people, even eminently qualified insiders who should know better, keep trying to measure shit that we don't need to measure. Like, what journals are good journals is known to anyone who is active in a field. If you're not sure about subfield journals, you can call up a friend in that subfield and find out. Committees can form a reasonable idea of your work output from looking at your CV. Why do we need these impact factors and h-indices and sundry?

There are quite a few interesting figures here but none of it supports the stated thesis. This Goodhart's "Law" (which is really just a vague quip some guy made once) supposes that metrics lose utility once people start exploiting them. In this case that would mean that research metric success has become decoupled with "real" research success. In essence, to provide evidence to the thesis one would have to show that the two quantities are no longer statistically correlated. *Nothing in this paper remotely demonstrates that. Nothing in it even tries to.* Of course if one WERE to try and do such a thing one would have a bit of a tautological difficulty as how does one assess "real" research success without employing a metric? I suppose one would maybe poll people in a field and ask them who they feel are the top researchers and then see if those people also have the top h-indices or the like (I suspect they largely would, invalidating the thesis). Instead this paper basically just shows that more people are publishing shorter papers , with more co-authors and self-cite more. Again, this does nothing to validate their alleged point.

bwptjv

askacademia_train

New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.

epzaxzj

epzbkvs

I have a lot of feelings about indices/rankings/ratings which can be summed up as, they're all bullshit, and I think it's a real shame that the ranking craze has taken over the world (obligatory Romer at World Bank shoutout). Mainly my beef is with the fact that people, even eminently qualified insiders who should know better, keep trying to measure shit that we don't need to measure. Like, what journals are good journals is known to anyone who is active in a field. If you're not sure about subfield journals, you can call up a friend in that subfield and find out. Committees can form a reasonable idea of your work output from looking at your CV. Why do we need these impact factors and h-indices and sundry?

I was thinking the other day that my university has screwed it up a bit because on the one hand everyone goes on about 'team science' and 'collaboration!' and then on the other at appraisal only counts 1st and last author publications. So someone emails you with an idea and it's basically: sorry, not to be a dick but I literally can't justify that.

bwptjv

askacademia_train

New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.

epzaxzj

epzcvme

I have a lot of feelings about indices/rankings/ratings which can be summed up as, they're all bullshit, and I think it's a real shame that the ranking craze has taken over the world (obligatory Romer at World Bank shoutout). Mainly my beef is with the fact that people, even eminently qualified insiders who should know better, keep trying to measure shit that we don't need to measure. Like, what journals are good journals is known to anyone who is active in a field. If you're not sure about subfield journals, you can call up a friend in that subfield and find out. Committees can form a reasonable idea of your work output from looking at your CV. Why do we need these impact factors and h-indices and sundry?

I agree with everything except a *Very Hard Disagree* On "shorter papers" in biology as an issue. At least in my field papers are now *gigantic* and the smallest publishable unit is the equivalent of 3-5 papers from 25 years ago. And what used to be 3 papers spread over 6 years (concept/problem isolation, innovation, and finally molecular/genetic mechanism) are now one single paper because without mechanism nowadays you might as well just publish your data on Facebook (sarcasm but...). As far as author lists growing, I think that is understandable because papers have to explain so much now there could easily be 20 different experimental techniques used (including in silico). So author lists include all of the people who had the expertise to do those different experiments quickly and reliably. It's difficult for one lab to produce to all of the different kinds of data needed to tell some stories in biology today so there are a lot of collaborating authors. More data = more authors. And as far as gaming the system, I know I'll get down voted for saying this, but this is actually a case where journal impact and citations/paper matters - a short paper written to pad a resume will not get published in a high impact journal, and a dozen short papers with no citations in low impact journals could also say something. I'm not disagreeing that our metrics suck. But it feels like surely the papers are not shorter *and* with more authors now compared to 20 years ago?

bwptjv

askacademia_train

New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.

epzaxzj

epzlydc

I have a lot of feelings about indices/rankings/ratings which can be summed up as, they're all bullshit, and I think it's a real shame that the ranking craze has taken over the world (obligatory Romer at World Bank shoutout). Mainly my beef is with the fact that people, even eminently qualified insiders who should know better, keep trying to measure shit that we don't need to measure. Like, what journals are good journals is known to anyone who is active in a field. If you're not sure about subfield journals, you can call up a friend in that subfield and find out. Committees can form a reasonable idea of your work output from looking at your CV. Why do we need these impact factors and h-indices and sundry?

This “study” is a hot steaming pile garbage and certainly doesn’t show what it claims to. A couple overarching massive flaws: 1. They don’t compare changes in # of papers or # of coauthors over time to changes in population. Their plot of # of papers looks a lot like a plot of the # of people in the world. At no point in the paper do they control for the effect of the increased number of researchers. At no point do they address the sharp decline in the past 15 years. 2. They make no effort to measure the quality of a paper, and yet claim that people are optimizing for metrics instead of improving. You need to actually give an indication that the quality of research isn’t increasing to show that. 3. Their data analysis practice is abysmal. They misleadingly cut axes and rescale plots. They don’t measure correlation, statistical significance, or effect size. They don’t discuss the fact that the trends they’re talking about sometimes only exist in some time periods and not others. They put Plot 10 in a paper, which is a horrible abomination that I still can’t figure out how to read. Now for a point-by-point refutation.... >First, these results support Goodhart’s Law as it relates to academic publishing: the measures (e.g., number of papers, number of citations, h-index, and impact factor) have become targets, and now they are no longer good measures. By making papers shorter and collaborating with more authors, researchers are able to produce more papers in the same amount of time. Moreover, we observed that the majority of changes in papers’ properties are correlated with papers that receive higher numbers of citations (see Fig. S13). Authors can use longer titles and abstracts, or use question or exclamation marks in titles, to make their papers more appealing. Thus, more readers are attracted to the paper, and ideally they will cite it, i.e., academic clickbait [45]. These results support our hypothesis that the citation number has become a target. Consequently, the properties of academic papers have evolved in order to win—to score a bullseye on the academic target. Of course the number of citations and coauthors has gone up, there are more researchers and papers than ever before! At no point did you ever present # of papers per author per year, so don’t make any claims about it. I am 100% sure you could get the actual number in one line of code, and the fact that you choose not to when it’s central to your narrative is a massive red flag. Additionally, you never consider the alternative hypothesis that writing quality of research papers has improved. Many research papers from the early 1900s are awful to read, incredibly dry, tedious, and poorly written. The fact that papers are shorter and more willing to engage in common rhetorical techniques like using questions in titles is a good thing in my mind. Writing papers that people want to read means writing better research papers. The analysis in this paper in no way demonstrates Goodhart’s Law. To do that you need to show that an increase in metric is not due to an increase in performance. >It is worth noting that while the study’s results provide evidence that many citation-based measures have become targets, there also may be other factors that influence academic publication trends. For example, the academic hypercompetitive environment itself may prompt an increase in productivity [81], hence increasing the number of papers. However, this claim contradicts the findings of Fanelli and Larivière that researchers’ individual productivity did not increase in the past century [52]. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that there may be other underlying factors that contributed to the observed results. Gee, you think? Shame other than this throwaway paragraph you don’t actually seriously consider any alternatives to the narrative you’re peddling. >Second, we observed that over time fewer papers list authors alphabetically, especially papers with a relatively high number of authors (see Results of Paper Trends section and Figs 4 and S5). These results may indicate the increased importance of an author’s sequence number in the author list, which may reflect the author’s contribution to the study. This result is another signal of the increasing importance of measures that rate an individual’s research contribution. This isn’t something you can meaningfully measure across all fields. Different fields have different conventions. Virtually every mathematics paper in the world today has alphabetical authorship or random authorship. In any event, this is barely a discernible trend in your plot and you made no effort to quantify the effect size or show that it was statistically significant. In the past 40 years, it looks like the needle has barely moved at all in terms of % of papers that have alphabetical authorship (Fig. 4). >Third, from matching papers to their L0 fields of study, we observed that the number of multidisciplinary papers has increased sharply over time (see Fig. 6). It is important to keep in mind that these results were obtained by matching keywords to their corresponding fields of study. Therefore, these results have several limitations: first, not all papers contain keywords. Second, the dataset may not extract keywords from papers in the correct manner. For example, we found some papers contained keywords in their online version but not in their offline version (see Results of Paper Trends section). It is also possible that in some fields it is less common to use keywords. Therefore, the papers’ keywords may be missing in the datasets, and the presented results may be an underestimate of the actual number of multidisciplinary studies. Nevertheless, we observed a strong trend in increasing numbers of multidisciplinary papers. This is totally disconnected from the rest of the analysis and never mentioned again. Is it supposed to be meaningful? >Fourth, from seeing sharp increases in both the maximal and mean number of self-citations (see Results of Paper Trends section and Figs 7, 9, 10, and S12), it is clear that citation numbers have become a target for some researchers, who cite their own papers dozens, or even hundreds, of times. Furthermore, we observed a general increasing trend for researchers to cite their previous work in their new studies. Moreover, from analyzing the percentage of papers without citations after 5 years, we observed that a huge quantity of papers (>72% of all papers and 25% of all papers with ≥5 references) have no citations at all (see Fig. 9). Obviously, many resources are spent on papers with limited impact. The lack of citations may indicate that researchers are publishing more papers of poorer quality to boost their total number of publications. Additionally, by exploring papers’ citation distributions (see Fig. 10), we can observe that different decades have very different citation distributions. This result indicates that comparing citation records of researchers who published papers during different periods can be challenging. No, it’s not clear that people are deliberately citing themselves to game research metrics. Self-citation will increase with no change in behavior if the number of people per paper increases, which you’ve already shown. Controlling for this is a basic prerequisite for drawing a meaningful inference, and it’s a shame you didn’t do that. It will also increase with increased specialization, since if I write 5 papers on a single topic and you write 5 papers on 5 different topics it is quite reasonable to assume my papers will show more self-citation than yours. You did show that the percentage of interdisciplinary papers is increasing, this might be a good place to reference that fact. In order to make claims about “some researchers” you need to actually track to see if that’s a stable group of people over time or not. Shame you didn’t bother to do that either. This is data analysis 101, and you’re failing it. You’re also failing it in other ways, such as changing the scale of plots that are being compared and cutting axes off arbitrarily. What Figure 9 actually shows is that the percentage of papers with no citations in 5 years has plummeted. I don’t understand how they can possibly write this with a straight face. Both of these numbers hit their all-time low between 2000 and today. In 1900 it was ~98% and today it’s ~75%. That’s good, right? Why are you presenting this like it’s a bad thing?

bwptjv

askacademia_train

New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.

epzf3rw

epzlydc

It is a measure but it is simply not that precise. If you compare two academics in the same fields with 5000 citations and 100 citation, it is obvious that the one with 5000 citations is better. However, it does not properly work for two academics with 100 and 150 citations. It does not have to be a genius to figure out that the current evaluation system is far from perfect. I find a bit unnecessary to repeatedly state this unless you propose a new way, which I do not see very often (not that I am an expert or whatever). *************** Besides everything, isn't it already too obvious? > Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department.

This “study” is a hot steaming pile garbage and certainly doesn’t show what it claims to. A couple overarching massive flaws: 1. They don’t compare changes in # of papers or # of coauthors over time to changes in population. Their plot of # of papers looks a lot like a plot of the # of people in the world. At no point in the paper do they control for the effect of the increased number of researchers. At no point do they address the sharp decline in the past 15 years. 2. They make no effort to measure the quality of a paper, and yet claim that people are optimizing for metrics instead of improving. You need to actually give an indication that the quality of research isn’t increasing to show that. 3. Their data analysis practice is abysmal. They misleadingly cut axes and rescale plots. They don’t measure correlation, statistical significance, or effect size. They don’t discuss the fact that the trends they’re talking about sometimes only exist in some time periods and not others. They put Plot 10 in a paper, which is a horrible abomination that I still can’t figure out how to read. Now for a point-by-point refutation.... >First, these results support Goodhart’s Law as it relates to academic publishing: the measures (e.g., number of papers, number of citations, h-index, and impact factor) have become targets, and now they are no longer good measures. By making papers shorter and collaborating with more authors, researchers are able to produce more papers in the same amount of time. Moreover, we observed that the majority of changes in papers’ properties are correlated with papers that receive higher numbers of citations (see Fig. S13). Authors can use longer titles and abstracts, or use question or exclamation marks in titles, to make their papers more appealing. Thus, more readers are attracted to the paper, and ideally they will cite it, i.e., academic clickbait [45]. These results support our hypothesis that the citation number has become a target. Consequently, the properties of academic papers have evolved in order to win—to score a bullseye on the academic target. Of course the number of citations and coauthors has gone up, there are more researchers and papers than ever before! At no point did you ever present # of papers per author per year, so don’t make any claims about it. I am 100% sure you could get the actual number in one line of code, and the fact that you choose not to when it’s central to your narrative is a massive red flag. Additionally, you never consider the alternative hypothesis that writing quality of research papers has improved. Many research papers from the early 1900s are awful to read, incredibly dry, tedious, and poorly written. The fact that papers are shorter and more willing to engage in common rhetorical techniques like using questions in titles is a good thing in my mind. Writing papers that people want to read means writing better research papers. The analysis in this paper in no way demonstrates Goodhart’s Law. To do that you need to show that an increase in metric is not due to an increase in performance. >It is worth noting that while the study’s results provide evidence that many citation-based measures have become targets, there also may be other factors that influence academic publication trends. For example, the academic hypercompetitive environment itself may prompt an increase in productivity [81], hence increasing the number of papers. However, this claim contradicts the findings of Fanelli and Larivière that researchers’ individual productivity did not increase in the past century [52]. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that there may be other underlying factors that contributed to the observed results. Gee, you think? Shame other than this throwaway paragraph you don’t actually seriously consider any alternatives to the narrative you’re peddling. >Second, we observed that over time fewer papers list authors alphabetically, especially papers with a relatively high number of authors (see Results of Paper Trends section and Figs 4 and S5). These results may indicate the increased importance of an author’s sequence number in the author list, which may reflect the author’s contribution to the study. This result is another signal of the increasing importance of measures that rate an individual’s research contribution. This isn’t something you can meaningfully measure across all fields. Different fields have different conventions. Virtually every mathematics paper in the world today has alphabetical authorship or random authorship. In any event, this is barely a discernible trend in your plot and you made no effort to quantify the effect size or show that it was statistically significant. In the past 40 years, it looks like the needle has barely moved at all in terms of % of papers that have alphabetical authorship (Fig. 4). >Third, from matching papers to their L0 fields of study, we observed that the number of multidisciplinary papers has increased sharply over time (see Fig. 6). It is important to keep in mind that these results were obtained by matching keywords to their corresponding fields of study. Therefore, these results have several limitations: first, not all papers contain keywords. Second, the dataset may not extract keywords from papers in the correct manner. For example, we found some papers contained keywords in their online version but not in their offline version (see Results of Paper Trends section). It is also possible that in some fields it is less common to use keywords. Therefore, the papers’ keywords may be missing in the datasets, and the presented results may be an underestimate of the actual number of multidisciplinary studies. Nevertheless, we observed a strong trend in increasing numbers of multidisciplinary papers. This is totally disconnected from the rest of the analysis and never mentioned again. Is it supposed to be meaningful? >Fourth, from seeing sharp increases in both the maximal and mean number of self-citations (see Results of Paper Trends section and Figs 7, 9, 10, and S12), it is clear that citation numbers have become a target for some researchers, who cite their own papers dozens, or even hundreds, of times. Furthermore, we observed a general increasing trend for researchers to cite their previous work in their new studies. Moreover, from analyzing the percentage of papers without citations after 5 years, we observed that a huge quantity of papers (>72% of all papers and 25% of all papers with ≥5 references) have no citations at all (see Fig. 9). Obviously, many resources are spent on papers with limited impact. The lack of citations may indicate that researchers are publishing more papers of poorer quality to boost their total number of publications. Additionally, by exploring papers’ citation distributions (see Fig. 10), we can observe that different decades have very different citation distributions. This result indicates that comparing citation records of researchers who published papers during different periods can be challenging. No, it’s not clear that people are deliberately citing themselves to game research metrics. Self-citation will increase with no change in behavior if the number of people per paper increases, which you’ve already shown. Controlling for this is a basic prerequisite for drawing a meaningful inference, and it’s a shame you didn’t do that. It will also increase with increased specialization, since if I write 5 papers on a single topic and you write 5 papers on 5 different topics it is quite reasonable to assume my papers will show more self-citation than yours. You did show that the percentage of interdisciplinary papers is increasing, this might be a good place to reference that fact. In order to make claims about “some researchers” you need to actually track to see if that’s a stable group of people over time or not. Shame you didn’t bother to do that either. This is data analysis 101, and you’re failing it. You’re also failing it in other ways, such as changing the scale of plots that are being compared and cutting axes off arbitrarily. What Figure 9 actually shows is that the percentage of papers with no citations in 5 years has plummeted. I don’t understand how they can possibly write this with a straight face. Both of these numbers hit their all-time low between 2000 and today. In 1900 it was ~98% and today it’s ~75%. That’s good, right? Why are you presenting this like it’s a bad thing?

bwptjv

askacademia_train

New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.

eq0882f

eq05ci0

At least in the social sciences, the number of citations/publications has ceased to have any real meaning and should not be used as a metric for success or influence. My doctoral program did not teach us this, but a colleague who attended a large program said they were taught to be strategic by doing the following: * Create a "research group" comprised of your friends in the discipline in which members take turns researching and writing, yet normally only the PI does any work, and the rest are just thrown on the publication (the others may proofread/edit so that ethically they can say they contributed); members of the group are then expected to return the favor to the others by adding them to their publications they did no work for. * Start their own online journal, and/or guest edit for an established journal, and/or become an editor of an established/top tier journal (dependent on what stage you are at in your career), and prioritize publishing your friends' work--especially if they are up for promotion or tenure, or some other review. Friends are then expected to do the same for them. * Edit an anthology in which you invite your friends to publish first--not the experts in the field. If friends are busy and can't write a chapter at that time, they recommend friends of friends, which then extends your circle of people who owe you or are going to cite you back. The actual experts in the field are last to be invited, but since it is quick and easy for them to put something together they often contribute, and this gives the anthology credibility. * Cite friends' work by finding a way to make their work relevant to yours so that they will then cite you back. Sometimes this requires the literature review to go on a tangent, but if you cite Joe, Joe will cite you back in three months when he submits his pub. There are two people in my department whom I can clearly see subscribe to the above model (the colleague who told me about it, plus another colleague not affiliated with this friend), and it is annoying when the latter tries to brag about the number of pubs he has knowing he only wrote or contributed to about 1/4 of them--and has very little knowledge on the content (proven by me, because one is my research area and he hasn't got a clue when I try to discuss it with him.) Meanwhile, I'm the sucker plugging away on my sole authored publications. Ordinarily I would not care about any of this because if you can live with yourself knowing you are playing this game then that's on you, but our department keeps raising the bar on the number of required publications for raises or promotions because they **see the number of annual pubs and citations going up each year**. The system is practically forcing academics to follow my colleague's model if we want raises. Maybe others don't think this is unethical, but it doesn't sit well with me. We have a new faculty member who started fall 2017 and my friend has really taken to him, and my colleague and a couple of his friends added this young PhD to their publications. This young PhD just won our university's pre-tenure research award. He is obviously being groomed to join the circle. There is no way he did anything on those pubs because he was finishing his dissertation last year. I'm sure I will see one or more of my colleague's names on the publications coming out of the young PhD's dissertation... I prefer to measure success by asking: Did your work make a positive change?

Sort of obvious, but good to hear it regardless

bwptjv

askacademia_train

New research suggests that metrics that are used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, number of citations, and impact factor, have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The original study can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/8/6/giz053/5506490 Abstract: **Background** > The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart’s Law, according to which, “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” **Results** > In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal’s impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department. **Conclusions** > Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.

eq0kjob

eq05ci0

It has been known for a while that the impact factor is useless because you can easily manipulate it as a publisher by publishing more reviews, inviting high profile authors and selecting on perceived impact with a high rejection rate. However, it is still regarded as a good parameter by the researchers themselves. So silly.

Sort of obvious, but good to hear it regardless

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmzk9

gxqm670

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

This is actually a major part of why I left academia. It was too demanding on my time. I didn't have enough time or energy to even get all of the work-related things done that I wanted - including spending extra time helping students, improving course materials, or working on research projects. And that's not even counting administrative responsibilities that I didn't have as a junior lecturer, but most of my colleagues had to do also. Hobbies? Exercise? Forget it! I'm really glad I went through grad school (computer science) and got the research training experience because that has proven extremely valuable. Now I work in industry and, at least at my current job, have a _much_ better work life balance (not all industry jobs are like this of course).

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmzk9

gxqm75n

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

In a strange way, life in research-intense academia is like a career in pro-sports. There is intense work and competition involved in getting drafted and then working your way through your rookie contract. Then you land a life-time contract. After that, how hard you work at your craft is up to you and your goals. Most people like what they are doing, want to stand out, and work hard. Some people are Tom Brady's, others coast... The most important thing for me is that I am reaching my 60's and there are still things I really want to do at work while my friends, no matter how much money they make, can't wait to retire.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqgfnv

gxqmzk9

All depends on where you put your priorities and boundaries. I’m an American doing my PhD studies in Europe right now. I burnt out hard during my MS and then again while I was in industry because I didn’t maintain my boundaries, now that I’ve learned that lesson I wish to not repeat it. There is a stronger focus on work-life balance here compared to the US. But if I wanted to, I have more than enough lab and manuscript writing to do to keep me busy all day everyday. With that said, I have to take efforts to prioritize my non academic interests. So I am getting out cycling 50km 1-2x during the week and usually a 100km ride on the weekend. I’m prioritizing making time outside of work to socialize with people. Unless I have a hard deadline for something, I try not to work after 6 or on the weekends. I try not to answer emails outside of business hours. With everything in life, you have to find and stick to your boundaries. What you value is what you’ll prioritize.

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmyie

gxqmzk9

There's a ton of inter-individual / inter-lab / inter-field variability here IMO (and maybe a bit inter-school & inter-country, etc... though I think those latter sources of variation are dwarfed by the former). In grad school, I knew lots of people who had a really smooth ride of it, doing fun stuff every weekend and evening, going on a few 1-3 week vacations each year, being social and healthy etc. I also knew of a few "classic" grad students working 60h+ weeks doing labwork into the wee morning (though usually those 60h weren't all meaningful work, e.g. there'd be a lot of downtime while equipment / code ran during which they'd dick around on social media). Personally, I've had lots of time for hobbies and exercise during both grad school and postdoc -- lifting 1-2h a day maybe 3-4x per week, usually around 5-10 miles of walking per day (during which I'd talk to friends / family / partner or listen to audiobooks / podcasts), maybe an hour, sometimes two of video games / TV / movies a night, usually a few hours of reading random non-work things a day, lotsa cooking, and every weekend at least one full-day hiking trip. My advisors throughout were also all very into life-work balance, being married with kid(s), clocking in and out on a strict 9-4 schedule with little-to-no work on the weekends barring unusual circumstances (usually a fast approaching deadline every few months). With some caveats though -- e.g. they both had tenure. In the US, fwiw, w/ PhD in Anthropology and now a postdoc in Computational Biology.

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmzk9

gxqhg9e

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

“Work in academia” is WAY too broad. It’s like saying “work in a hospital”. The ER nurses will have a different answer than the oncology nurses, who have a different answer from the x-ray technicians, who have a different answer than the surgeons, who have a different answer than the OBGYN, who have a difference answer than the lab technicians, who have a different answer than the cafeteria workers, who have a different answer than the president of the hospital, who has a different answer than....

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqltl0

gxqmzk9

During COVID, it's been awful. Work bleeds into evenings, weekends, sleep hours, etc etc etc. During normal times, though, I find it very much a "work hard, play hard" kind of sector. Sometimes, I'll spend 15 hours in a day working on a paper, or be absolutely slammed for a week teaching classes and working on proposals. I might also spend 16+hrs a day at a workshop or meetings for a couple of days in a row. But, if I'm not teaching or under a deadline, I can also have a lot of flexibility. I might work 12+hr days on Mon/Tues to teach and get ready for a conference, then conference 15+hrs on Wed/Thur, but then can take all Friday off to just explore whatever city I'm in and chill out. I might teach until 7pm or 8pm, but I can take a chill morning the next day and get some errands done or just sleep in. All that said, I know others (somehow!) manage this much more like a typical 9-5 job. I've never been able to make that work, but I know some do.

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmzk9

gxqmfkc

Academia is predatory. Many people are drawn to academia for idealistic reasons; academic freedom, contributing to a greater good, being able to research without fear or favour etc. It is from this idealism that universities prey on you and expect you to be there for solely the mission of a university at the expense of your work-life balance, family, health, hobbies etc. Academia also encourages people to stay in precarious situations of relying on lots of short term contracts due to the mission of teaching and researching. Edit: spelling

As someone that moved from the academy to the industry, in Europe, I can say that in general, academic work is less stressful. Or rather put, it depends more on you as a worker than on the team or the heads of lab. The difference being that (in Europe) you are not _really_ pressured by anyone else to do anything, and you are very much left to your own devices. Whereas in a company, the hirearchical links are much stiffer, with orders and results moving upwards and downwards along the chain, and everyone wants everything for yesterday. Also, if your work is not good, you're bound to have to deal with the consequences, because you're putting everybody's ass on the line. Work never disappears. When it's done, there's always more to do. When it's not done in time or is done badly, it becomes one more problem for your supervisor, and even more work for your colleagues.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqnuzi

gxqm670

Honestly, you're young...don't make the mistake of pigeonholing yourself into a PhD. I know there's many, MANY of us that have watched our friends from college leave with their tidy little bachelor's degree and join the workforce in a field that pays well and offers great work-life balance almost immediately. We've watched them get married, buy a house, have kids etc, all while we struggle on the edge of poverty in obscurity. There are days when this sort of thing can be soul-crushing, if you let it. On the one hand, I love that I get to "learn" for a living; on the other, I could easily spend all my extra free time learning whatever I want if I had a job in the real world. With the way the academic market is moving (has been moving, for decades), the amount of tenured position have become increasingly small and the work you have to put in to get one is not worth it in the long run. If I could do it all over again, I'd go back and get a BS in computer science--take a programming job and call it good. Bottomline, what I do for a living is great for impressing people over conversation at dinner...beyond that, it's a rough life.

This is actually a major part of why I left academia. It was too demanding on my time. I didn't have enough time or energy to even get all of the work-related things done that I wanted - including spending extra time helping students, improving course materials, or working on research projects. And that's not even counting administrative responsibilities that I didn't have as a junior lecturer, but most of my colleagues had to do also. Hobbies? Exercise? Forget it! I'm really glad I went through grad school (computer science) and got the research training experience because that has proven extremely valuable. Now I work in industry and, at least at my current job, have a _much_ better work life balance (not all industry jobs are like this of course).

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqnuzi

gxqm75n

Honestly, you're young...don't make the mistake of pigeonholing yourself into a PhD. I know there's many, MANY of us that have watched our friends from college leave with their tidy little bachelor's degree and join the workforce in a field that pays well and offers great work-life balance almost immediately. We've watched them get married, buy a house, have kids etc, all while we struggle on the edge of poverty in obscurity. There are days when this sort of thing can be soul-crushing, if you let it. On the one hand, I love that I get to "learn" for a living; on the other, I could easily spend all my extra free time learning whatever I want if I had a job in the real world. With the way the academic market is moving (has been moving, for decades), the amount of tenured position have become increasingly small and the work you have to put in to get one is not worth it in the long run. If I could do it all over again, I'd go back and get a BS in computer science--take a programming job and call it good. Bottomline, what I do for a living is great for impressing people over conversation at dinner...beyond that, it's a rough life.

In a strange way, life in research-intense academia is like a career in pro-sports. There is intense work and competition involved in getting drafted and then working your way through your rookie contract. Then you land a life-time contract. After that, how hard you work at your craft is up to you and your goals. Most people like what they are doing, want to stand out, and work hard. Some people are Tom Brady's, others coast... The most important thing for me is that I am reaching my 60's and there are still things I really want to do at work while my friends, no matter how much money they make, can't wait to retire.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqnuzi

gxqgfnv

Honestly, you're young...don't make the mistake of pigeonholing yourself into a PhD. I know there's many, MANY of us that have watched our friends from college leave with their tidy little bachelor's degree and join the workforce in a field that pays well and offers great work-life balance almost immediately. We've watched them get married, buy a house, have kids etc, all while we struggle on the edge of poverty in obscurity. There are days when this sort of thing can be soul-crushing, if you let it. On the one hand, I love that I get to "learn" for a living; on the other, I could easily spend all my extra free time learning whatever I want if I had a job in the real world. With the way the academic market is moving (has been moving, for decades), the amount of tenured position have become increasingly small and the work you have to put in to get one is not worth it in the long run. If I could do it all over again, I'd go back and get a BS in computer science--take a programming job and call it good. Bottomline, what I do for a living is great for impressing people over conversation at dinner...beyond that, it's a rough life.

All depends on where you put your priorities and boundaries. I’m an American doing my PhD studies in Europe right now. I burnt out hard during my MS and then again while I was in industry because I didn’t maintain my boundaries, now that I’ve learned that lesson I wish to not repeat it. There is a stronger focus on work-life balance here compared to the US. But if I wanted to, I have more than enough lab and manuscript writing to do to keep me busy all day everyday. With that said, I have to take efforts to prioritize my non academic interests. So I am getting out cycling 50km 1-2x during the week and usually a 100km ride on the weekend. I’m prioritizing making time outside of work to socialize with people. Unless I have a hard deadline for something, I try not to work after 6 or on the weekends. I try not to answer emails outside of business hours. With everything in life, you have to find and stick to your boundaries. What you value is what you’ll prioritize.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmyie

gxqnuzi

There's a ton of inter-individual / inter-lab / inter-field variability here IMO (and maybe a bit inter-school & inter-country, etc... though I think those latter sources of variation are dwarfed by the former). In grad school, I knew lots of people who had a really smooth ride of it, doing fun stuff every weekend and evening, going on a few 1-3 week vacations each year, being social and healthy etc. I also knew of a few "classic" grad students working 60h+ weeks doing labwork into the wee morning (though usually those 60h weren't all meaningful work, e.g. there'd be a lot of downtime while equipment / code ran during which they'd dick around on social media). Personally, I've had lots of time for hobbies and exercise during both grad school and postdoc -- lifting 1-2h a day maybe 3-4x per week, usually around 5-10 miles of walking per day (during which I'd talk to friends / family / partner or listen to audiobooks / podcasts), maybe an hour, sometimes two of video games / TV / movies a night, usually a few hours of reading random non-work things a day, lotsa cooking, and every weekend at least one full-day hiking trip. My advisors throughout were also all very into life-work balance, being married with kid(s), clocking in and out on a strict 9-4 schedule with little-to-no work on the weekends barring unusual circumstances (usually a fast approaching deadline every few months). With some caveats though -- e.g. they both had tenure. In the US, fwiw, w/ PhD in Anthropology and now a postdoc in Computational Biology.

Honestly, you're young...don't make the mistake of pigeonholing yourself into a PhD. I know there's many, MANY of us that have watched our friends from college leave with their tidy little bachelor's degree and join the workforce in a field that pays well and offers great work-life balance almost immediately. We've watched them get married, buy a house, have kids etc, all while we struggle on the edge of poverty in obscurity. There are days when this sort of thing can be soul-crushing, if you let it. On the one hand, I love that I get to "learn" for a living; on the other, I could easily spend all my extra free time learning whatever I want if I had a job in the real world. With the way the academic market is moving (has been moving, for decades), the amount of tenured position have become increasingly small and the work you have to put in to get one is not worth it in the long run. If I could do it all over again, I'd go back and get a BS in computer science--take a programming job and call it good. Bottomline, what I do for a living is great for impressing people over conversation at dinner...beyond that, it's a rough life.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqnuzi

gxqhg9e

Honestly, you're young...don't make the mistake of pigeonholing yourself into a PhD. I know there's many, MANY of us that have watched our friends from college leave with their tidy little bachelor's degree and join the workforce in a field that pays well and offers great work-life balance almost immediately. We've watched them get married, buy a house, have kids etc, all while we struggle on the edge of poverty in obscurity. There are days when this sort of thing can be soul-crushing, if you let it. On the one hand, I love that I get to "learn" for a living; on the other, I could easily spend all my extra free time learning whatever I want if I had a job in the real world. With the way the academic market is moving (has been moving, for decades), the amount of tenured position have become increasingly small and the work you have to put in to get one is not worth it in the long run. If I could do it all over again, I'd go back and get a BS in computer science--take a programming job and call it good. Bottomline, what I do for a living is great for impressing people over conversation at dinner...beyond that, it's a rough life.

“Work in academia” is WAY too broad. It’s like saying “work in a hospital”. The ER nurses will have a different answer than the oncology nurses, who have a different answer from the x-ray technicians, who have a different answer than the surgeons, who have a different answer than the OBGYN, who have a difference answer than the lab technicians, who have a different answer than the cafeteria workers, who have a different answer than the president of the hospital, who has a different answer than....

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqltl0

gxqnuzi

During COVID, it's been awful. Work bleeds into evenings, weekends, sleep hours, etc etc etc. During normal times, though, I find it very much a "work hard, play hard" kind of sector. Sometimes, I'll spend 15 hours in a day working on a paper, or be absolutely slammed for a week teaching classes and working on proposals. I might also spend 16+hrs a day at a workshop or meetings for a couple of days in a row. But, if I'm not teaching or under a deadline, I can also have a lot of flexibility. I might work 12+hr days on Mon/Tues to teach and get ready for a conference, then conference 15+hrs on Wed/Thur, but then can take all Friday off to just explore whatever city I'm in and chill out. I might teach until 7pm or 8pm, but I can take a chill morning the next day and get some errands done or just sleep in. All that said, I know others (somehow!) manage this much more like a typical 9-5 job. I've never been able to make that work, but I know some do.

Honestly, you're young...don't make the mistake of pigeonholing yourself into a PhD. I know there's many, MANY of us that have watched our friends from college leave with their tidy little bachelor's degree and join the workforce in a field that pays well and offers great work-life balance almost immediately. We've watched them get married, buy a house, have kids etc, all while we struggle on the edge of poverty in obscurity. There are days when this sort of thing can be soul-crushing, if you let it. On the one hand, I love that I get to "learn" for a living; on the other, I could easily spend all my extra free time learning whatever I want if I had a job in the real world. With the way the academic market is moving (has been moving, for decades), the amount of tenured position have become increasingly small and the work you have to put in to get one is not worth it in the long run. If I could do it all over again, I'd go back and get a BS in computer science--take a programming job and call it good. Bottomline, what I do for a living is great for impressing people over conversation at dinner...beyond that, it's a rough life.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmfkc

gxqnuzi

As someone that moved from the academy to the industry, in Europe, I can say that in general, academic work is less stressful. Or rather put, it depends more on you as a worker than on the team or the heads of lab. The difference being that (in Europe) you are not _really_ pressured by anyone else to do anything, and you are very much left to your own devices. Whereas in a company, the hirearchical links are much stiffer, with orders and results moving upwards and downwards along the chain, and everyone wants everything for yesterday. Also, if your work is not good, you're bound to have to deal with the consequences, because you're putting everybody's ass on the line. Work never disappears. When it's done, there's always more to do. When it's not done in time or is done badly, it becomes one more problem for your supervisor, and even more work for your colleagues.

Honestly, you're young...don't make the mistake of pigeonholing yourself into a PhD. I know there's many, MANY of us that have watched our friends from college leave with their tidy little bachelor's degree and join the workforce in a field that pays well and offers great work-life balance almost immediately. We've watched them get married, buy a house, have kids etc, all while we struggle on the edge of poverty in obscurity. There are days when this sort of thing can be soul-crushing, if you let it. On the one hand, I love that I get to "learn" for a living; on the other, I could easily spend all my extra free time learning whatever I want if I had a job in the real world. With the way the academic market is moving (has been moving, for decades), the amount of tenured position have become increasingly small and the work you have to put in to get one is not worth it in the long run. If I could do it all over again, I'd go back and get a BS in computer science--take a programming job and call it good. Bottomline, what I do for a living is great for impressing people over conversation at dinner...beyond that, it's a rough life.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqm670

gxqgfnv

This is actually a major part of why I left academia. It was too demanding on my time. I didn't have enough time or energy to even get all of the work-related things done that I wanted - including spending extra time helping students, improving course materials, or working on research projects. And that's not even counting administrative responsibilities that I didn't have as a junior lecturer, but most of my colleagues had to do also. Hobbies? Exercise? Forget it! I'm really glad I went through grad school (computer science) and got the research training experience because that has proven extremely valuable. Now I work in industry and, at least at my current job, have a _much_ better work life balance (not all industry jobs are like this of course).

All depends on where you put your priorities and boundaries. I’m an American doing my PhD studies in Europe right now. I burnt out hard during my MS and then again while I was in industry because I didn’t maintain my boundaries, now that I’ve learned that lesson I wish to not repeat it. There is a stronger focus on work-life balance here compared to the US. But if I wanted to, I have more than enough lab and manuscript writing to do to keep me busy all day everyday. With that said, I have to take efforts to prioritize my non academic interests. So I am getting out cycling 50km 1-2x during the week and usually a 100km ride on the weekend. I’m prioritizing making time outside of work to socialize with people. Unless I have a hard deadline for something, I try not to work after 6 or on the weekends. I try not to answer emails outside of business hours. With everything in life, you have to find and stick to your boundaries. What you value is what you’ll prioritize.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqhg9e

gxqm670

“Work in academia” is WAY too broad. It’s like saying “work in a hospital”. The ER nurses will have a different answer than the oncology nurses, who have a different answer from the x-ray technicians, who have a different answer than the surgeons, who have a different answer than the OBGYN, who have a difference answer than the lab technicians, who have a different answer than the cafeteria workers, who have a different answer than the president of the hospital, who has a different answer than....

This is actually a major part of why I left academia. It was too demanding on my time. I didn't have enough time or energy to even get all of the work-related things done that I wanted - including spending extra time helping students, improving course materials, or working on research projects. And that's not even counting administrative responsibilities that I didn't have as a junior lecturer, but most of my colleagues had to do also. Hobbies? Exercise? Forget it! I'm really glad I went through grad school (computer science) and got the research training experience because that has proven extremely valuable. Now I work in industry and, at least at my current job, have a _much_ better work life balance (not all industry jobs are like this of course).

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqltl0

gxqm670

During COVID, it's been awful. Work bleeds into evenings, weekends, sleep hours, etc etc etc. During normal times, though, I find it very much a "work hard, play hard" kind of sector. Sometimes, I'll spend 15 hours in a day working on a paper, or be absolutely slammed for a week teaching classes and working on proposals. I might also spend 16+hrs a day at a workshop or meetings for a couple of days in a row. But, if I'm not teaching or under a deadline, I can also have a lot of flexibility. I might work 12+hr days on Mon/Tues to teach and get ready for a conference, then conference 15+hrs on Wed/Thur, but then can take all Friday off to just explore whatever city I'm in and chill out. I might teach until 7pm or 8pm, but I can take a chill morning the next day and get some errands done or just sleep in. All that said, I know others (somehow!) manage this much more like a typical 9-5 job. I've never been able to make that work, but I know some do.

This is actually a major part of why I left academia. It was too demanding on my time. I didn't have enough time or energy to even get all of the work-related things done that I wanted - including spending extra time helping students, improving course materials, or working on research projects. And that's not even counting administrative responsibilities that I didn't have as a junior lecturer, but most of my colleagues had to do also. Hobbies? Exercise? Forget it! I'm really glad I went through grad school (computer science) and got the research training experience because that has proven extremely valuable. Now I work in industry and, at least at my current job, have a _much_ better work life balance (not all industry jobs are like this of course).

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqgfnv

gxqm75n

All depends on where you put your priorities and boundaries. I’m an American doing my PhD studies in Europe right now. I burnt out hard during my MS and then again while I was in industry because I didn’t maintain my boundaries, now that I’ve learned that lesson I wish to not repeat it. There is a stronger focus on work-life balance here compared to the US. But if I wanted to, I have more than enough lab and manuscript writing to do to keep me busy all day everyday. With that said, I have to take efforts to prioritize my non academic interests. So I am getting out cycling 50km 1-2x during the week and usually a 100km ride on the weekend. I’m prioritizing making time outside of work to socialize with people. Unless I have a hard deadline for something, I try not to work after 6 or on the weekends. I try not to answer emails outside of business hours. With everything in life, you have to find and stick to your boundaries. What you value is what you’ll prioritize.

In a strange way, life in research-intense academia is like a career in pro-sports. There is intense work and competition involved in getting drafted and then working your way through your rookie contract. Then you land a life-time contract. After that, how hard you work at your craft is up to you and your goals. Most people like what they are doing, want to stand out, and work hard. Some people are Tom Brady's, others coast... The most important thing for me is that I am reaching my 60's and there are still things I really want to do at work while my friends, no matter how much money they make, can't wait to retire.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqhg9e

gxqm75n

“Work in academia” is WAY too broad. It’s like saying “work in a hospital”. The ER nurses will have a different answer than the oncology nurses, who have a different answer from the x-ray technicians, who have a different answer than the surgeons, who have a different answer than the OBGYN, who have a difference answer than the lab technicians, who have a different answer than the cafeteria workers, who have a different answer than the president of the hospital, who has a different answer than....

In a strange way, life in research-intense academia is like a career in pro-sports. There is intense work and competition involved in getting drafted and then working your way through your rookie contract. Then you land a life-time contract. After that, how hard you work at your craft is up to you and your goals. Most people like what they are doing, want to stand out, and work hard. Some people are Tom Brady's, others coast... The most important thing for me is that I am reaching my 60's and there are still things I really want to do at work while my friends, no matter how much money they make, can't wait to retire.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqltl0

gxqm75n

During COVID, it's been awful. Work bleeds into evenings, weekends, sleep hours, etc etc etc. During normal times, though, I find it very much a "work hard, play hard" kind of sector. Sometimes, I'll spend 15 hours in a day working on a paper, or be absolutely slammed for a week teaching classes and working on proposals. I might also spend 16+hrs a day at a workshop or meetings for a couple of days in a row. But, if I'm not teaching or under a deadline, I can also have a lot of flexibility. I might work 12+hr days on Mon/Tues to teach and get ready for a conference, then conference 15+hrs on Wed/Thur, but then can take all Friday off to just explore whatever city I'm in and chill out. I might teach until 7pm or 8pm, but I can take a chill morning the next day and get some errands done or just sleep in. All that said, I know others (somehow!) manage this much more like a typical 9-5 job. I've never been able to make that work, but I know some do.

In a strange way, life in research-intense academia is like a career in pro-sports. There is intense work and competition involved in getting drafted and then working your way through your rookie contract. Then you land a life-time contract. After that, how hard you work at your craft is up to you and your goals. Most people like what they are doing, want to stand out, and work hard. Some people are Tom Brady's, others coast... The most important thing for me is that I am reaching my 60's and there are still things I really want to do at work while my friends, no matter how much money they make, can't wait to retire.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqgfnv

gxqqke7

All depends on where you put your priorities and boundaries. I’m an American doing my PhD studies in Europe right now. I burnt out hard during my MS and then again while I was in industry because I didn’t maintain my boundaries, now that I’ve learned that lesson I wish to not repeat it. There is a stronger focus on work-life balance here compared to the US. But if I wanted to, I have more than enough lab and manuscript writing to do to keep me busy all day everyday. With that said, I have to take efforts to prioritize my non academic interests. So I am getting out cycling 50km 1-2x during the week and usually a 100km ride on the weekend. I’m prioritizing making time outside of work to socialize with people. Unless I have a hard deadline for something, I try not to work after 6 or on the weekends. I try not to answer emails outside of business hours. With everything in life, you have to find and stick to your boundaries. What you value is what you’ll prioritize.

I try not to let anyone know this, but I have rarely worked even 40 hours a week. I have plenty of time for non-work activities. The only exception was a few semesters in graduate school when I was running multiple experiments and teaching, and sometimes I have a few crazy days leading up to a grant deadline.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmyie

gxqqke7

There's a ton of inter-individual / inter-lab / inter-field variability here IMO (and maybe a bit inter-school & inter-country, etc... though I think those latter sources of variation are dwarfed by the former). In grad school, I knew lots of people who had a really smooth ride of it, doing fun stuff every weekend and evening, going on a few 1-3 week vacations each year, being social and healthy etc. I also knew of a few "classic" grad students working 60h+ weeks doing labwork into the wee morning (though usually those 60h weren't all meaningful work, e.g. there'd be a lot of downtime while equipment / code ran during which they'd dick around on social media). Personally, I've had lots of time for hobbies and exercise during both grad school and postdoc -- lifting 1-2h a day maybe 3-4x per week, usually around 5-10 miles of walking per day (during which I'd talk to friends / family / partner or listen to audiobooks / podcasts), maybe an hour, sometimes two of video games / TV / movies a night, usually a few hours of reading random non-work things a day, lotsa cooking, and every weekend at least one full-day hiking trip. My advisors throughout were also all very into life-work balance, being married with kid(s), clocking in and out on a strict 9-4 schedule with little-to-no work on the weekends barring unusual circumstances (usually a fast approaching deadline every few months). With some caveats though -- e.g. they both had tenure. In the US, fwiw, w/ PhD in Anthropology and now a postdoc in Computational Biology.

I try not to let anyone know this, but I have rarely worked even 40 hours a week. I have plenty of time for non-work activities. The only exception was a few semesters in graduate school when I was running multiple experiments and teaching, and sometimes I have a few crazy days leading up to a grant deadline.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqqke7

gxqhg9e

I try not to let anyone know this, but I have rarely worked even 40 hours a week. I have plenty of time for non-work activities. The only exception was a few semesters in graduate school when I was running multiple experiments and teaching, and sometimes I have a few crazy days leading up to a grant deadline.

“Work in academia” is WAY too broad. It’s like saying “work in a hospital”. The ER nurses will have a different answer than the oncology nurses, who have a different answer from the x-ray technicians, who have a different answer than the surgeons, who have a different answer than the OBGYN, who have a difference answer than the lab technicians, who have a different answer than the cafeteria workers, who have a different answer than the president of the hospital, who has a different answer than....

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqqke7

gxqltl0

I try not to let anyone know this, but I have rarely worked even 40 hours a week. I have plenty of time for non-work activities. The only exception was a few semesters in graduate school when I was running multiple experiments and teaching, and sometimes I have a few crazy days leading up to a grant deadline.

During COVID, it's been awful. Work bleeds into evenings, weekends, sleep hours, etc etc etc. During normal times, though, I find it very much a "work hard, play hard" kind of sector. Sometimes, I'll spend 15 hours in a day working on a paper, or be absolutely slammed for a week teaching classes and working on proposals. I might also spend 16+hrs a day at a workshop or meetings for a couple of days in a row. But, if I'm not teaching or under a deadline, I can also have a lot of flexibility. I might work 12+hr days on Mon/Tues to teach and get ready for a conference, then conference 15+hrs on Wed/Thur, but then can take all Friday off to just explore whatever city I'm in and chill out. I might teach until 7pm or 8pm, but I can take a chill morning the next day and get some errands done or just sleep in. All that said, I know others (somehow!) manage this much more like a typical 9-5 job. I've never been able to make that work, but I know some do.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqpf5d

gxqqke7

Not enough. My work has eaten my hobbies. Balance is pretty bad, even at a small school with low grant requirements. Happiness is not great because of little support for research. I do NOT earn enough for my efforts. Getting tenure only got me a $1500 raise...

I try not to let anyone know this, but I have rarely worked even 40 hours a week. I have plenty of time for non-work activities. The only exception was a few semesters in graduate school when I was running multiple experiments and teaching, and sometimes I have a few crazy days leading up to a grant deadline.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqqke7

gxqmfkc

I try not to let anyone know this, but I have rarely worked even 40 hours a week. I have plenty of time for non-work activities. The only exception was a few semesters in graduate school when I was running multiple experiments and teaching, and sometimes I have a few crazy days leading up to a grant deadline.

As someone that moved from the academy to the industry, in Europe, I can say that in general, academic work is less stressful. Or rather put, it depends more on you as a worker than on the team or the heads of lab. The difference being that (in Europe) you are not _really_ pressured by anyone else to do anything, and you are very much left to your own devices. Whereas in a company, the hirearchical links are much stiffer, with orders and results moving upwards and downwards along the chain, and everyone wants everything for yesterday. Also, if your work is not good, you're bound to have to deal with the consequences, because you're putting everybody's ass on the line. Work never disappears. When it's done, there's always more to do. When it's not done in time or is done badly, it becomes one more problem for your supervisor, and even more work for your colleagues.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqqke7

gxqpnor

I try not to let anyone know this, but I have rarely worked even 40 hours a week. I have plenty of time for non-work activities. The only exception was a few semesters in graduate school when I was running multiple experiments and teaching, and sometimes I have a few crazy days leading up to a grant deadline.

I have a lot of respect for those who managed to go through the whole TT process. I don't know how you guys cope with the stress of setting up your lab (assuming it's STEM) / group, publishing, finding funding, teaching classes, starting a family, and managing personal life, not to mention that the pay is usually not any better than a industry position.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmyie

gxqltl0

There's a ton of inter-individual / inter-lab / inter-field variability here IMO (and maybe a bit inter-school & inter-country, etc... though I think those latter sources of variation are dwarfed by the former). In grad school, I knew lots of people who had a really smooth ride of it, doing fun stuff every weekend and evening, going on a few 1-3 week vacations each year, being social and healthy etc. I also knew of a few "classic" grad students working 60h+ weeks doing labwork into the wee morning (though usually those 60h weren't all meaningful work, e.g. there'd be a lot of downtime while equipment / code ran during which they'd dick around on social media). Personally, I've had lots of time for hobbies and exercise during both grad school and postdoc -- lifting 1-2h a day maybe 3-4x per week, usually around 5-10 miles of walking per day (during which I'd talk to friends / family / partner or listen to audiobooks / podcasts), maybe an hour, sometimes two of video games / TV / movies a night, usually a few hours of reading random non-work things a day, lotsa cooking, and every weekend at least one full-day hiking trip. My advisors throughout were also all very into life-work balance, being married with kid(s), clocking in and out on a strict 9-4 schedule with little-to-no work on the weekends barring unusual circumstances (usually a fast approaching deadline every few months). With some caveats though -- e.g. they both had tenure. In the US, fwiw, w/ PhD in Anthropology and now a postdoc in Computational Biology.

During COVID, it's been awful. Work bleeds into evenings, weekends, sleep hours, etc etc etc. During normal times, though, I find it very much a "work hard, play hard" kind of sector. Sometimes, I'll spend 15 hours in a day working on a paper, or be absolutely slammed for a week teaching classes and working on proposals. I might also spend 16+hrs a day at a workshop or meetings for a couple of days in a row. But, if I'm not teaching or under a deadline, I can also have a lot of flexibility. I might work 12+hr days on Mon/Tues to teach and get ready for a conference, then conference 15+hrs on Wed/Thur, but then can take all Friday off to just explore whatever city I'm in and chill out. I might teach until 7pm or 8pm, but I can take a chill morning the next day and get some errands done or just sleep in. All that said, I know others (somehow!) manage this much more like a typical 9-5 job. I've never been able to make that work, but I know some do.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmyie

gxqmfkc

There's a ton of inter-individual / inter-lab / inter-field variability here IMO (and maybe a bit inter-school & inter-country, etc... though I think those latter sources of variation are dwarfed by the former). In grad school, I knew lots of people who had a really smooth ride of it, doing fun stuff every weekend and evening, going on a few 1-3 week vacations each year, being social and healthy etc. I also knew of a few "classic" grad students working 60h+ weeks doing labwork into the wee morning (though usually those 60h weren't all meaningful work, e.g. there'd be a lot of downtime while equipment / code ran during which they'd dick around on social media). Personally, I've had lots of time for hobbies and exercise during both grad school and postdoc -- lifting 1-2h a day maybe 3-4x per week, usually around 5-10 miles of walking per day (during which I'd talk to friends / family / partner or listen to audiobooks / podcasts), maybe an hour, sometimes two of video games / TV / movies a night, usually a few hours of reading random non-work things a day, lotsa cooking, and every weekend at least one full-day hiking trip. My advisors throughout were also all very into life-work balance, being married with kid(s), clocking in and out on a strict 9-4 schedule with little-to-no work on the weekends barring unusual circumstances (usually a fast approaching deadline every few months). With some caveats though -- e.g. they both had tenure. In the US, fwiw, w/ PhD in Anthropology and now a postdoc in Computational Biology.

As someone that moved from the academy to the industry, in Europe, I can say that in general, academic work is less stressful. Or rather put, it depends more on you as a worker than on the team or the heads of lab. The difference being that (in Europe) you are not _really_ pressured by anyone else to do anything, and you are very much left to your own devices. Whereas in a company, the hirearchical links are much stiffer, with orders and results moving upwards and downwards along the chain, and everyone wants everything for yesterday. Also, if your work is not good, you're bound to have to deal with the consequences, because you're putting everybody's ass on the line. Work never disappears. When it's done, there's always more to do. When it's not done in time or is done badly, it becomes one more problem for your supervisor, and even more work for your colleagues.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqrps6

gxqpf5d

Academia is very broad. I have a great deal of flexibility in my job, and think many people overinflate how busy/hardworking they are because that's what we're taught to do in academia. In reality, the people responding to this thread have time to browse reddit and if you click through their profiles, many of them are very active, so they have more free time then they describe (or at least count procrastinating to their work hours). 😉 I try to be more honest with myself about "actual hours worked" and I'd say on a typical day it can be anywhere from 2-5 hours of actual work, with a few more hours in meetings/talks etc.... That said, when a paper or project deadline is approaching or something appears on my desk with little warning (which happens a lot more in academia than in industry, given how siloed everyone is) I can spend a solid week getting up early, shoveling some oatmeal, hoping on the computer and working till 11/12 pm then doing it all again the next day. This never happened to me in my previous government and private sector jobs. In those, I pretty much worked consistent days and was done when I clocked out. Academia gives you a lot more flexibility depending on the job you choose. I am a specialist in an extension center at a university, but I am mostly on local grant projects and working on curriculum development for the grad program. I'm not tenure track, nor do I want to be. While non TT jobs don't come with as much respect, they tend to fly a bit more under the radar, allowing you to craft your own job and schedule a bit more. That's what I've done here, and my only complaint is sometimes having too little guidance. So yes, I think I have decent balance normally. Covid has messed it up some since I work from home. I am not incredibly happy in this job, but that has less to do with the job and more to do with my boss not being a great manager (also very common in academia unfortunately) I think I am underpaid from a competitive market standpoint, but not underpaid for the hours I actually put in (I would work harder if I was paid more, but have learned in previous jobs that killing yourself really doesn't gain you much). Being grant funded is also somewhat stressful, as my % appt can fluctuate year to year, but I'm working on managing that more closely.

Not enough. My work has eaten my hobbies. Balance is pretty bad, even at a small school with low grant requirements. Happiness is not great because of little support for research. I do NOT earn enough for my efforts. Getting tenure only got me a $1500 raise...

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqrps6

gxqmfkc

Academia is very broad. I have a great deal of flexibility in my job, and think many people overinflate how busy/hardworking they are because that's what we're taught to do in academia. In reality, the people responding to this thread have time to browse reddit and if you click through their profiles, many of them are very active, so they have more free time then they describe (or at least count procrastinating to their work hours). 😉 I try to be more honest with myself about "actual hours worked" and I'd say on a typical day it can be anywhere from 2-5 hours of actual work, with a few more hours in meetings/talks etc.... That said, when a paper or project deadline is approaching or something appears on my desk with little warning (which happens a lot more in academia than in industry, given how siloed everyone is) I can spend a solid week getting up early, shoveling some oatmeal, hoping on the computer and working till 11/12 pm then doing it all again the next day. This never happened to me in my previous government and private sector jobs. In those, I pretty much worked consistent days and was done when I clocked out. Academia gives you a lot more flexibility depending on the job you choose. I am a specialist in an extension center at a university, but I am mostly on local grant projects and working on curriculum development for the grad program. I'm not tenure track, nor do I want to be. While non TT jobs don't come with as much respect, they tend to fly a bit more under the radar, allowing you to craft your own job and schedule a bit more. That's what I've done here, and my only complaint is sometimes having too little guidance. So yes, I think I have decent balance normally. Covid has messed it up some since I work from home. I am not incredibly happy in this job, but that has less to do with the job and more to do with my boss not being a great manager (also very common in academia unfortunately) I think I am underpaid from a competitive market standpoint, but not underpaid for the hours I actually put in (I would work harder if I was paid more, but have learned in previous jobs that killing yourself really doesn't gain you much). Being grant funded is also somewhat stressful, as my % appt can fluctuate year to year, but I'm working on managing that more closely.

As someone that moved from the academy to the industry, in Europe, I can say that in general, academic work is less stressful. Or rather put, it depends more on you as a worker than on the team or the heads of lab. The difference being that (in Europe) you are not _really_ pressured by anyone else to do anything, and you are very much left to your own devices. Whereas in a company, the hirearchical links are much stiffer, with orders and results moving upwards and downwards along the chain, and everyone wants everything for yesterday. Also, if your work is not good, you're bound to have to deal with the consequences, because you're putting everybody's ass on the line. Work never disappears. When it's done, there's always more to do. When it's not done in time or is done badly, it becomes one more problem for your supervisor, and even more work for your colleagues.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqrps6

gxqpnor

Academia is very broad. I have a great deal of flexibility in my job, and think many people overinflate how busy/hardworking they are because that's what we're taught to do in academia. In reality, the people responding to this thread have time to browse reddit and if you click through their profiles, many of them are very active, so they have more free time then they describe (or at least count procrastinating to their work hours). 😉 I try to be more honest with myself about "actual hours worked" and I'd say on a typical day it can be anywhere from 2-5 hours of actual work, with a few more hours in meetings/talks etc.... That said, when a paper or project deadline is approaching or something appears on my desk with little warning (which happens a lot more in academia than in industry, given how siloed everyone is) I can spend a solid week getting up early, shoveling some oatmeal, hoping on the computer and working till 11/12 pm then doing it all again the next day. This never happened to me in my previous government and private sector jobs. In those, I pretty much worked consistent days and was done when I clocked out. Academia gives you a lot more flexibility depending on the job you choose. I am a specialist in an extension center at a university, but I am mostly on local grant projects and working on curriculum development for the grad program. I'm not tenure track, nor do I want to be. While non TT jobs don't come with as much respect, they tend to fly a bit more under the radar, allowing you to craft your own job and schedule a bit more. That's what I've done here, and my only complaint is sometimes having too little guidance. So yes, I think I have decent balance normally. Covid has messed it up some since I work from home. I am not incredibly happy in this job, but that has less to do with the job and more to do with my boss not being a great manager (also very common in academia unfortunately) I think I am underpaid from a competitive market standpoint, but not underpaid for the hours I actually put in (I would work harder if I was paid more, but have learned in previous jobs that killing yourself really doesn't gain you much). Being grant funded is also somewhat stressful, as my % appt can fluctuate year to year, but I'm working on managing that more closely.

I have a lot of respect for those who managed to go through the whole TT process. I don't know how you guys cope with the stress of setting up your lab (assuming it's STEM) / group, publishing, finding funding, teaching classes, starting a family, and managing personal life, not to mention that the pay is usually not any better than a industry position.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqpf5d

gxqmfkc

Not enough. My work has eaten my hobbies. Balance is pretty bad, even at a small school with low grant requirements. Happiness is not great because of little support for research. I do NOT earn enough for my efforts. Getting tenure only got me a $1500 raise...

As someone that moved from the academy to the industry, in Europe, I can say that in general, academic work is less stressful. Or rather put, it depends more on you as a worker than on the team or the heads of lab. The difference being that (in Europe) you are not _really_ pressured by anyone else to do anything, and you are very much left to your own devices. Whereas in a company, the hirearchical links are much stiffer, with orders and results moving upwards and downwards along the chain, and everyone wants everything for yesterday. Also, if your work is not good, you're bound to have to deal with the consequences, because you're putting everybody's ass on the line. Work never disappears. When it's done, there's always more to do. When it's not done in time or is done badly, it becomes one more problem for your supervisor, and even more work for your colleagues.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqmfkc

gxrbfhv

As someone that moved from the academy to the industry, in Europe, I can say that in general, academic work is less stressful. Or rather put, it depends more on you as a worker than on the team or the heads of lab. The difference being that (in Europe) you are not _really_ pressured by anyone else to do anything, and you are very much left to your own devices. Whereas in a company, the hirearchical links are much stiffer, with orders and results moving upwards and downwards along the chain, and everyone wants everything for yesterday. Also, if your work is not good, you're bound to have to deal with the consequences, because you're putting everybody's ass on the line. Work never disappears. When it's done, there's always more to do. When it's not done in time or is done badly, it becomes one more problem for your supervisor, and even more work for your colleagues.

I think everyone answering this question should have to make it clear where they are in their career. The answer to the question of 1) is it worth it and 2)how much free time do you have is very dependent on what point you’re at in your career, and if you “made it” or not. I am post tenure now and I have plenty of time for a life, a boyfriend, exercise, and travel. I mean, I could work all the time— but I make space for the things I need now. I get to do a job I love and I’m paid decent money to do it. Tenure track jobs are swell, if you make it. But those jobs are disappearing at an amazingly rapid rate. Is going into academia worth it if you end up an adjunct, cobbling together a salary from five different classes at several different universities spread out across town? When you don’t have an office or any health insurance? I’m not sure it is.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqz75h

gxrbfhv

Gotta realize approximately 60-80% of academics (depending on the school) are contingent employees. Adjunct professors mostly, plus some term (1-3 yrs) contract folks. The perspectives coming from many of these above faculty are research oriented tenure track, which is not only a small & shrinking minority, but also extremely difficult to attain. FT fac generally have no interest in the exploitation of PT faculty. Most academics are PT & unemployed at least twice a year, are paid considerably less than FT fac, and often have little to no benefits. If you are lucky enough to land a FT spot, be prepared to move anywhere you can find a job. Educational capitalism is a pyramid. There are lots of expendable pawns. The system is antithetical the espoused educational community we grow up believing higher Ed to be. Its a combative, cut throat, shit show.

I think everyone answering this question should have to make it clear where they are in their career. The answer to the question of 1) is it worth it and 2)how much free time do you have is very dependent on what point you’re at in your career, and if you “made it” or not. I am post tenure now and I have plenty of time for a life, a boyfriend, exercise, and travel. I mean, I could work all the time— but I make space for the things I need now. I get to do a job I love and I’m paid decent money to do it. Tenure track jobs are swell, if you make it. But those jobs are disappearing at an amazingly rapid rate. Is going into academia worth it if you end up an adjunct, cobbling together a salary from five different classes at several different universities spread out across town? When you don’t have an office or any health insurance? I’m not sure it is.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxrbfhv

gxqpnor

I think everyone answering this question should have to make it clear where they are in their career. The answer to the question of 1) is it worth it and 2)how much free time do you have is very dependent on what point you’re at in your career, and if you “made it” or not. I am post tenure now and I have plenty of time for a life, a boyfriend, exercise, and travel. I mean, I could work all the time— but I make space for the things I need now. I get to do a job I love and I’m paid decent money to do it. Tenure track jobs are swell, if you make it. But those jobs are disappearing at an amazingly rapid rate. Is going into academia worth it if you end up an adjunct, cobbling together a salary from five different classes at several different universities spread out across town? When you don’t have an office or any health insurance? I’m not sure it is.

I have a lot of respect for those who managed to go through the whole TT process. I don't know how you guys cope with the stress of setting up your lab (assuming it's STEM) / group, publishing, finding funding, teaching classes, starting a family, and managing personal life, not to mention that the pay is usually not any better than a industry position.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxrbfhv

gxr7lrw

I think everyone answering this question should have to make it clear where they are in their career. The answer to the question of 1) is it worth it and 2)how much free time do you have is very dependent on what point you’re at in your career, and if you “made it” or not. I am post tenure now and I have plenty of time for a life, a boyfriend, exercise, and travel. I mean, I could work all the time— but I make space for the things I need now. I get to do a job I love and I’m paid decent money to do it. Tenure track jobs are swell, if you make it. But those jobs are disappearing at an amazingly rapid rate. Is going into academia worth it if you end up an adjunct, cobbling together a salary from five different classes at several different universities spread out across town? When you don’t have an office or any health insurance? I’m not sure it is.

For many people PhD is a choose your own adventure, AKA I know people who worked 60 hours and other who worked 10 hours (if that). Some people graduated with 1 terrible paper and a lot of friends, others graduated with 20+ papers. One of the problems with academia is that until you hit your 30s you're paid the same amount. Problem is that you're competing against the 60 hour a week workers when it comes for faculty jobs etc. I knew plenty of "fit" people, but no fewer happy people.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxrbfhv

gxr60ru

I think everyone answering this question should have to make it clear where they are in their career. The answer to the question of 1) is it worth it and 2)how much free time do you have is very dependent on what point you’re at in your career, and if you “made it” or not. I am post tenure now and I have plenty of time for a life, a boyfriend, exercise, and travel. I mean, I could work all the time— but I make space for the things I need now. I get to do a job I love and I’m paid decent money to do it. Tenure track jobs are swell, if you make it. But those jobs are disappearing at an amazingly rapid rate. Is going into academia worth it if you end up an adjunct, cobbling together a salary from five different classes at several different universities spread out across town? When you don’t have an office or any health insurance? I’m not sure it is.

No balance. I work or care for kids. That’s all I do besides exercise and sleep.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqydt1

gxrbfhv

I just finished my Master's degree, which in all honestly was more akin to a PhD in terms of workload. Here are my ratings from that time: Free time for hobbies: Almost none. I realized a year in that I could no longer answer the question, "What do you do for fun?" Exercise: Same. I used to work out regularly and climb competitively. I was too exhausted to keep up even a light routine at most times. Work-life Balance: I would say I usually spent 10-12 hours working each day, and most of the rest feeding myself, cleaning, etc. I lost touch with friends who were not in my department because much of my socialization time ended up becoming a roundtables of venting about how horrible grad school is. My adviser was a big proponent of one day off a week though, so I took Sundays off. Sounds nice, but this inevitably caused me to fall behind those students who worked every day. Happiness: I will admit some of the high points in my life have come from academia. However, they were free and far between and I fell into a regular cycle of depression and eventually became suicidal until I was able to start seeing a therapist. This was a result of over working, financial stress, lack of social support, and imposter syndrome. And majorly, I suffered sexual assault and the suicide of a loved one during this time and was not given adequate leaniency or time to process this traumas. Gotta keep working, through everything. Pay: Atrocious. Tenure track professors live comfortably, yes, but I have spent the last few years scraping to pay rent and nearly lost my home once the pandemic hit. I also could not afford health insurance and most grad positions do not support you over the summer, even if they expect you to work on research during that time. The thing I wish had been drilled into me harder was the time frame of when all this would end. I had been told that it would be hard but tenure is worth it. But over my time in grad school it has become abundantly clear that I was not going to gain the respect, time, academic freedom, or personal freedom, to find myself in a happy job situation until I reach tenure. Realizing that I am nearly thirty and have at least another 7-10 years before I get to feel stake and secure, financially and emotionally, is a large reason why I have decided to take my career on a different path. For me, it is not worth sacrificing my emotional stability, personal relationships, hobbies, and physical health for a job that I may or may not get in another decade. OP, I hope that reading these replies gives you some perspective. Please be aware also that COVID has shaken the University system to its roots-- universities are strained for money and are recovering by: 1. Laying off critical support staff and shifting many of their duties to grad students and professors, shaving off more free time for those positions. 2. Reducing pay or increasing teaching workloads for grad students. This will also reduce the quality of teaching you receive as an undergraduate. 3. Downsizing hiring for tenure track professors, which increases competition in an already savagely competitive field. 4. Reducing funding for undergraduate research opportunities, which may make it difficult to stand out as an academic fighting for one of the above positions. Although the pandemic may be in decline soon, there is no telling how long these changes may last. It could be years, if you think about the money universities have lost from having little to no on-campus housing for nearly two years. That's their major source of income. That is not to say all paths to academia are horrible. But if you do go for it, please do your research and be sure that you find mentors who support student/life balance. Be sure to speak with their mentees and confirm that the adviser does not expect you to dedicate the entirety of your life to academia, or you may risk the borderline cruelty and burn out that have turned so many of us away.

I think everyone answering this question should have to make it clear where they are in their career. The answer to the question of 1) is it worth it and 2)how much free time do you have is very dependent on what point you’re at in your career, and if you “made it” or not. I am post tenure now and I have plenty of time for a life, a boyfriend, exercise, and travel. I mean, I could work all the time— but I make space for the things I need now. I get to do a job I love and I’m paid decent money to do it. Tenure track jobs are swell, if you make it. But those jobs are disappearing at an amazingly rapid rate. Is going into academia worth it if you end up an adjunct, cobbling together a salary from five different classes at several different universities spread out across town? When you don’t have an office or any health insurance? I’m not sure it is.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqpnor

gxqz75h

I have a lot of respect for those who managed to go through the whole TT process. I don't know how you guys cope with the stress of setting up your lab (assuming it's STEM) / group, publishing, finding funding, teaching classes, starting a family, and managing personal life, not to mention that the pay is usually not any better than a industry position.

Gotta realize approximately 60-80% of academics (depending on the school) are contingent employees. Adjunct professors mostly, plus some term (1-3 yrs) contract folks. The perspectives coming from many of these above faculty are research oriented tenure track, which is not only a small & shrinking minority, but also extremely difficult to attain. FT fac generally have no interest in the exploitation of PT faculty. Most academics are PT & unemployed at least twice a year, are paid considerably less than FT fac, and often have little to no benefits. If you are lucky enough to land a FT spot, be prepared to move anywhere you can find a job. Educational capitalism is a pyramid. There are lots of expendable pawns. The system is antithetical the espoused educational community we grow up believing higher Ed to be. Its a combative, cut throat, shit show.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqz75h

gxqydt1

Gotta realize approximately 60-80% of academics (depending on the school) are contingent employees. Adjunct professors mostly, plus some term (1-3 yrs) contract folks. The perspectives coming from many of these above faculty are research oriented tenure track, which is not only a small & shrinking minority, but also extremely difficult to attain. FT fac generally have no interest in the exploitation of PT faculty. Most academics are PT & unemployed at least twice a year, are paid considerably less than FT fac, and often have little to no benefits. If you are lucky enough to land a FT spot, be prepared to move anywhere you can find a job. Educational capitalism is a pyramid. There are lots of expendable pawns. The system is antithetical the espoused educational community we grow up believing higher Ed to be. Its a combative, cut throat, shit show.

I just finished my Master's degree, which in all honestly was more akin to a PhD in terms of workload. Here are my ratings from that time: Free time for hobbies: Almost none. I realized a year in that I could no longer answer the question, "What do you do for fun?" Exercise: Same. I used to work out regularly and climb competitively. I was too exhausted to keep up even a light routine at most times. Work-life Balance: I would say I usually spent 10-12 hours working each day, and most of the rest feeding myself, cleaning, etc. I lost touch with friends who were not in my department because much of my socialization time ended up becoming a roundtables of venting about how horrible grad school is. My adviser was a big proponent of one day off a week though, so I took Sundays off. Sounds nice, but this inevitably caused me to fall behind those students who worked every day. Happiness: I will admit some of the high points in my life have come from academia. However, they were free and far between and I fell into a regular cycle of depression and eventually became suicidal until I was able to start seeing a therapist. This was a result of over working, financial stress, lack of social support, and imposter syndrome. And majorly, I suffered sexual assault and the suicide of a loved one during this time and was not given adequate leaniency or time to process this traumas. Gotta keep working, through everything. Pay: Atrocious. Tenure track professors live comfortably, yes, but I have spent the last few years scraping to pay rent and nearly lost my home once the pandemic hit. I also could not afford health insurance and most grad positions do not support you over the summer, even if they expect you to work on research during that time. The thing I wish had been drilled into me harder was the time frame of when all this would end. I had been told that it would be hard but tenure is worth it. But over my time in grad school it has become abundantly clear that I was not going to gain the respect, time, academic freedom, or personal freedom, to find myself in a happy job situation until I reach tenure. Realizing that I am nearly thirty and have at least another 7-10 years before I get to feel stake and secure, financially and emotionally, is a large reason why I have decided to take my career on a different path. For me, it is not worth sacrificing my emotional stability, personal relationships, hobbies, and physical health for a job that I may or may not get in another decade. OP, I hope that reading these replies gives you some perspective. Please be aware also that COVID has shaken the University system to its roots-- universities are strained for money and are recovering by: 1. Laying off critical support staff and shifting many of their duties to grad students and professors, shaving off more free time for those positions. 2. Reducing pay or increasing teaching workloads for grad students. This will also reduce the quality of teaching you receive as an undergraduate. 3. Downsizing hiring for tenure track professors, which increases competition in an already savagely competitive field. 4. Reducing funding for undergraduate research opportunities, which may make it difficult to stand out as an academic fighting for one of the above positions. Although the pandemic may be in decline soon, there is no telling how long these changes may last. It could be years, if you think about the money universities have lost from having little to no on-campus housing for nearly two years. That's their major source of income. That is not to say all paths to academia are horrible. But if you do go for it, please do your research and be sure that you find mentors who support student/life balance. Be sure to speak with their mentees and confirm that the adviser does not expect you to dedicate the entirety of your life to academia, or you may risk the borderline cruelty and burn out that have turned so many of us away.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqpnor

gxr60ru

I have a lot of respect for those who managed to go through the whole TT process. I don't know how you guys cope with the stress of setting up your lab (assuming it's STEM) / group, publishing, finding funding, teaching classes, starting a family, and managing personal life, not to mention that the pay is usually not any better than a industry position.

No balance. I work or care for kids. That’s all I do besides exercise and sleep.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqpnor

gxrkljc

I have a lot of respect for those who managed to go through the whole TT process. I don't know how you guys cope with the stress of setting up your lab (assuming it's STEM) / group, publishing, finding funding, teaching classes, starting a family, and managing personal life, not to mention that the pay is usually not any better than a industry position.

I was born to be an academic. I love the intellectual freedom and flexible schedule. My free time is really flexible as well, so work/life balance shifts depending on deadlines, but I take time off when I need it and don't worry so much about logging hours. (Obviously it's more difficult during the school year to take breaks when you're teaching.) I'm super happy even though I'm incredibly underpaid for my level of education (STEM PhD), but money isn't everything. It'd be great if I could pay off my student loans from undergrad, but whatever, it's not about that for me. I get to be curious for a living and that's worth more than money to me. I think though, that what others have said is really important- you're a teenager. My career trajectory changed dramatically from undergrad to now. I thought I wanted to do one thing, then realized I wanted to do something else. I thought I wanted to work in industry because I had no concept of academic research and the opportunities available there. Just study what you love and talk to professors about their lives. Academia is not for everyone but when I talk to my friends in more traditional 9-5 jobs, they may have more free time at night but honestly, I have more hobbies that I engage in than they do. They're my break from the research and academic life.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxrkljc

gxr7lrw

I was born to be an academic. I love the intellectual freedom and flexible schedule. My free time is really flexible as well, so work/life balance shifts depending on deadlines, but I take time off when I need it and don't worry so much about logging hours. (Obviously it's more difficult during the school year to take breaks when you're teaching.) I'm super happy even though I'm incredibly underpaid for my level of education (STEM PhD), but money isn't everything. It'd be great if I could pay off my student loans from undergrad, but whatever, it's not about that for me. I get to be curious for a living and that's worth more than money to me. I think though, that what others have said is really important- you're a teenager. My career trajectory changed dramatically from undergrad to now. I thought I wanted to do one thing, then realized I wanted to do something else. I thought I wanted to work in industry because I had no concept of academic research and the opportunities available there. Just study what you love and talk to professors about their lives. Academia is not for everyone but when I talk to my friends in more traditional 9-5 jobs, they may have more free time at night but honestly, I have more hobbies that I engage in than they do. They're my break from the research and academic life.

For many people PhD is a choose your own adventure, AKA I know people who worked 60 hours and other who worked 10 hours (if that). Some people graduated with 1 terrible paper and a lot of friends, others graduated with 20+ papers. One of the problems with academia is that until you hit your 30s you're paid the same amount. Problem is that you're competing against the 60 hour a week workers when it comes for faculty jobs etc. I knew plenty of "fit" people, but no fewer happy people.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxr7lrw

gxqydt1

For many people PhD is a choose your own adventure, AKA I know people who worked 60 hours and other who worked 10 hours (if that). Some people graduated with 1 terrible paper and a lot of friends, others graduated with 20+ papers. One of the problems with academia is that until you hit your 30s you're paid the same amount. Problem is that you're competing against the 60 hour a week workers when it comes for faculty jobs etc. I knew plenty of "fit" people, but no fewer happy people.

I just finished my Master's degree, which in all honestly was more akin to a PhD in terms of workload. Here are my ratings from that time: Free time for hobbies: Almost none. I realized a year in that I could no longer answer the question, "What do you do for fun?" Exercise: Same. I used to work out regularly and climb competitively. I was too exhausted to keep up even a light routine at most times. Work-life Balance: I would say I usually spent 10-12 hours working each day, and most of the rest feeding myself, cleaning, etc. I lost touch with friends who were not in my department because much of my socialization time ended up becoming a roundtables of venting about how horrible grad school is. My adviser was a big proponent of one day off a week though, so I took Sundays off. Sounds nice, but this inevitably caused me to fall behind those students who worked every day. Happiness: I will admit some of the high points in my life have come from academia. However, they were free and far between and I fell into a regular cycle of depression and eventually became suicidal until I was able to start seeing a therapist. This was a result of over working, financial stress, lack of social support, and imposter syndrome. And majorly, I suffered sexual assault and the suicide of a loved one during this time and was not given adequate leaniency or time to process this traumas. Gotta keep working, through everything. Pay: Atrocious. Tenure track professors live comfortably, yes, but I have spent the last few years scraping to pay rent and nearly lost my home once the pandemic hit. I also could not afford health insurance and most grad positions do not support you over the summer, even if they expect you to work on research during that time. The thing I wish had been drilled into me harder was the time frame of when all this would end. I had been told that it would be hard but tenure is worth it. But over my time in grad school it has become abundantly clear that I was not going to gain the respect, time, academic freedom, or personal freedom, to find myself in a happy job situation until I reach tenure. Realizing that I am nearly thirty and have at least another 7-10 years before I get to feel stake and secure, financially and emotionally, is a large reason why I have decided to take my career on a different path. For me, it is not worth sacrificing my emotional stability, personal relationships, hobbies, and physical health for a job that I may or may not get in another decade. OP, I hope that reading these replies gives you some perspective. Please be aware also that COVID has shaken the University system to its roots-- universities are strained for money and are recovering by: 1. Laying off critical support staff and shifting many of their duties to grad students and professors, shaving off more free time for those positions. 2. Reducing pay or increasing teaching workloads for grad students. This will also reduce the quality of teaching you receive as an undergraduate. 3. Downsizing hiring for tenure track professors, which increases competition in an already savagely competitive field. 4. Reducing funding for undergraduate research opportunities, which may make it difficult to stand out as an academic fighting for one of the above positions. Although the pandemic may be in decline soon, there is no telling how long these changes may last. It could be years, if you think about the money universities have lost from having little to no on-campus housing for nearly two years. That's their major source of income. That is not to say all paths to academia are horrible. But if you do go for it, please do your research and be sure that you find mentors who support student/life balance. Be sure to speak with their mentees and confirm that the adviser does not expect you to dedicate the entirety of your life to academia, or you may risk the borderline cruelty and burn out that have turned so many of us away.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxr60ru

gxqydt1

No balance. I work or care for kids. That’s all I do besides exercise and sleep.

I just finished my Master's degree, which in all honestly was more akin to a PhD in terms of workload. Here are my ratings from that time: Free time for hobbies: Almost none. I realized a year in that I could no longer answer the question, "What do you do for fun?" Exercise: Same. I used to work out regularly and climb competitively. I was too exhausted to keep up even a light routine at most times. Work-life Balance: I would say I usually spent 10-12 hours working each day, and most of the rest feeding myself, cleaning, etc. I lost touch with friends who were not in my department because much of my socialization time ended up becoming a roundtables of venting about how horrible grad school is. My adviser was a big proponent of one day off a week though, so I took Sundays off. Sounds nice, but this inevitably caused me to fall behind those students who worked every day. Happiness: I will admit some of the high points in my life have come from academia. However, they were free and far between and I fell into a regular cycle of depression and eventually became suicidal until I was able to start seeing a therapist. This was a result of over working, financial stress, lack of social support, and imposter syndrome. And majorly, I suffered sexual assault and the suicide of a loved one during this time and was not given adequate leaniency or time to process this traumas. Gotta keep working, through everything. Pay: Atrocious. Tenure track professors live comfortably, yes, but I have spent the last few years scraping to pay rent and nearly lost my home once the pandemic hit. I also could not afford health insurance and most grad positions do not support you over the summer, even if they expect you to work on research during that time. The thing I wish had been drilled into me harder was the time frame of when all this would end. I had been told that it would be hard but tenure is worth it. But over my time in grad school it has become abundantly clear that I was not going to gain the respect, time, academic freedom, or personal freedom, to find myself in a happy job situation until I reach tenure. Realizing that I am nearly thirty and have at least another 7-10 years before I get to feel stake and secure, financially and emotionally, is a large reason why I have decided to take my career on a different path. For me, it is not worth sacrificing my emotional stability, personal relationships, hobbies, and physical health for a job that I may or may not get in another decade. OP, I hope that reading these replies gives you some perspective. Please be aware also that COVID has shaken the University system to its roots-- universities are strained for money and are recovering by: 1. Laying off critical support staff and shifting many of their duties to grad students and professors, shaving off more free time for those positions. 2. Reducing pay or increasing teaching workloads for grad students. This will also reduce the quality of teaching you receive as an undergraduate. 3. Downsizing hiring for tenure track professors, which increases competition in an already savagely competitive field. 4. Reducing funding for undergraduate research opportunities, which may make it difficult to stand out as an academic fighting for one of the above positions. Although the pandemic may be in decline soon, there is no telling how long these changes may last. It could be years, if you think about the money universities have lost from having little to no on-campus housing for nearly two years. That's their major source of income. That is not to say all paths to academia are horrible. But if you do go for it, please do your research and be sure that you find mentors who support student/life balance. Be sure to speak with their mentees and confirm that the adviser does not expect you to dedicate the entirety of your life to academia, or you may risk the borderline cruelty and burn out that have turned so many of us away.

n9y9r0

askacademia_train

Redditors who work in academia, how much free time do you get for your hobbies, exercising, etc.? How is the work-life balance for you? How would you rate your happiness? Do you think you earn enough for your efforts? From a curious teenager who is contemplating being in academia when I grow up 🙂

gxqydt1

gxrkljc

I just finished my Master's degree, which in all honestly was more akin to a PhD in terms of workload. Here are my ratings from that time: Free time for hobbies: Almost none. I realized a year in that I could no longer answer the question, "What do you do for fun?" Exercise: Same. I used to work out regularly and climb competitively. I was too exhausted to keep up even a light routine at most times. Work-life Balance: I would say I usually spent 10-12 hours working each day, and most of the rest feeding myself, cleaning, etc. I lost touch with friends who were not in my department because much of my socialization time ended up becoming a roundtables of venting about how horrible grad school is. My adviser was a big proponent of one day off a week though, so I took Sundays off. Sounds nice, but this inevitably caused me to fall behind those students who worked every day. Happiness: I will admit some of the high points in my life have come from academia. However, they were free and far between and I fell into a regular cycle of depression and eventually became suicidal until I was able to start seeing a therapist. This was a result of over working, financial stress, lack of social support, and imposter syndrome. And majorly, I suffered sexual assault and the suicide of a loved one during this time and was not given adequate leaniency or time to process this traumas. Gotta keep working, through everything. Pay: Atrocious. Tenure track professors live comfortably, yes, but I have spent the last few years scraping to pay rent and nearly lost my home once the pandemic hit. I also could not afford health insurance and most grad positions do not support you over the summer, even if they expect you to work on research during that time. The thing I wish had been drilled into me harder was the time frame of when all this would end. I had been told that it would be hard but tenure is worth it. But over my time in grad school it has become abundantly clear that I was not going to gain the respect, time, academic freedom, or personal freedom, to find myself in a happy job situation until I reach tenure. Realizing that I am nearly thirty and have at least another 7-10 years before I get to feel stake and secure, financially and emotionally, is a large reason why I have decided to take my career on a different path. For me, it is not worth sacrificing my emotional stability, personal relationships, hobbies, and physical health for a job that I may or may not get in another decade. OP, I hope that reading these replies gives you some perspective. Please be aware also that COVID has shaken the University system to its roots-- universities are strained for money and are recovering by: 1. Laying off critical support staff and shifting many of their duties to grad students and professors, shaving off more free time for those positions. 2. Reducing pay or increasing teaching workloads for grad students. This will also reduce the quality of teaching you receive as an undergraduate. 3. Downsizing hiring for tenure track professors, which increases competition in an already savagely competitive field. 4. Reducing funding for undergraduate research opportunities, which may make it difficult to stand out as an academic fighting for one of the above positions. Although the pandemic may be in decline soon, there is no telling how long these changes may last. It could be years, if you think about the money universities have lost from having little to no on-campus housing for nearly two years. That's their major source of income. That is not to say all paths to academia are horrible. But if you do go for it, please do your research and be sure that you find mentors who support student/life balance. Be sure to speak with their mentees and confirm that the adviser does not expect you to dedicate the entirety of your life to academia, or you may risk the borderline cruelty and burn out that have turned so many of us away.

I was born to be an academic. I love the intellectual freedom and flexible schedule. My free time is really flexible as well, so work/life balance shifts depending on deadlines, but I take time off when I need it and don't worry so much about logging hours. (Obviously it's more difficult during the school year to take breaks when you're teaching.) I'm super happy even though I'm incredibly underpaid for my level of education (STEM PhD), but money isn't everything. It'd be great if I could pay off my student loans from undergrad, but whatever, it's not about that for me. I get to be curious for a living and that's worth more than money to me. I think though, that what others have said is really important- you're a teenager. My career trajectory changed dramatically from undergrad to now. I thought I wanted to do one thing, then realized I wanted to do something else. I thought I wanted to work in industry because I had no concept of academic research and the opportunities available there. Just study what you love and talk to professors about their lives. Academia is not for everyone but when I talk to my friends in more traditional 9-5 jobs, they may have more free time at night but honestly, I have more hobbies that I engage in than they do. They're my break from the research and academic life.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljmhz7

fljn6s4

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

I think it's alright both to feel annoyed, and to need to suck it up. This is an extreme situation. If it would make you feel better, keep a log of the ways you're going above and beyond. It's possible you may be able to use it later as leverage when you need help from others or have a family emergency of your own. Compassion now might save you from being jobless when the recession hits. There is so much uncertainty and fear right now. Shouldering the burden when others can't is one of the ways we're going to get through this. Even if it's a little resentful, I really do thing the appropriate response right now is kindness.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljs0gy

fljn832

If it makes you feel any better, I’m frustrated that I’m expected to somehow get all my usual work done remotely, with two needy kids now at home, AND now the older one’s school is starting to send work home too so I’m also supposed to be homeschooling my child at the same time. I’ve been staying up past 1 am each night to get my work done bc I can’t do anything until the kids are asleep. We can all be frustrated/angry/overwhelmed together, just know that everyone is doing their best in a crazy situation.

I don't think you are selfish. I think, in normal circumstances, the state should provide the necessary means of childcare such as kindergartens, parental leaves etc. But we are not under normal circumstances right now. Just imagine working on your usual schedule, but with kids at home, constantly wanting attention, food, yelling, maybe fighting with each other. I can clearly see the point of assigning them less work. However, this doesn't mean you're selfish, and you have every right to feel annoyed. It's not your responsibility if they wanted to have kids. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a win-win solution for you, but maybe you should raise your concerns about overworking. Edit: forgot to add "should" in the second sentence

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljs0gy

fljrqnd

If it makes you feel any better, I’m frustrated that I’m expected to somehow get all my usual work done remotely, with two needy kids now at home, AND now the older one’s school is starting to send work home too so I’m also supposed to be homeschooling my child at the same time. I’ve been staying up past 1 am each night to get my work done bc I can’t do anything until the kids are asleep. We can all be frustrated/angry/overwhelmed together, just know that everyone is doing their best in a crazy situation.

I don’t think it’s right to have different work expectations for those who do and don’t have children. Im a grad student in a department where most PhD students are married and have 1-3 kids. I often find that those students receive substantially more allowances and can get away with skipping things like “mandatory” colloquial because they have kids at home. I think it’s super insulting to treat people who have children as if their time is inherently more valuable than those that don’t. I’m definitely not someone who dislikes kids, I just don’t have any of my own yet. That said, it’s whack to act as if their personal, non-work related choice should affect workload.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljs0gy

fljr6nv

If it makes you feel any better, I’m frustrated that I’m expected to somehow get all my usual work done remotely, with two needy kids now at home, AND now the older one’s school is starting to send work home too so I’m also supposed to be homeschooling my child at the same time. I’ve been staying up past 1 am each night to get my work done bc I can’t do anything until the kids are asleep. We can all be frustrated/angry/overwhelmed together, just know that everyone is doing their best in a crazy situation.

I think you're not wrong to be bothered by a higher workload, but the amount of work that needs to get done per person has increased. While your colleagues have to spend more time each day to take care of their children, you get more of the work they usually do. It sucks for everyone. We have to lower our expectations a little bit if necessary.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljmhz7

fljs0gy

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

If it makes you feel any better, I’m frustrated that I’m expected to somehow get all my usual work done remotely, with two needy kids now at home, AND now the older one’s school is starting to send work home too so I’m also supposed to be homeschooling my child at the same time. I’ve been staying up past 1 am each night to get my work done bc I can’t do anything until the kids are asleep. We can all be frustrated/angry/overwhelmed together, just know that everyone is doing their best in a crazy situation.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljs0gy

fljrd5x

If it makes you feel any better, I’m frustrated that I’m expected to somehow get all my usual work done remotely, with two needy kids now at home, AND now the older one’s school is starting to send work home too so I’m also supposed to be homeschooling my child at the same time. I’ve been staying up past 1 am each night to get my work done bc I can’t do anything until the kids are asleep. We can all be frustrated/angry/overwhelmed together, just know that everyone is doing their best in a crazy situation.

I think it is wrong of them to give you more work. On the other hand, I don't think there's a way out of it - there is very little to be gained by complaining, or worse refusing to do extra work. I suppose you could always lie. If you say "I know I don't have children, but actually I have elderly relatives that depend on me", whether or not that's true, it could get them off your back a bit, and it's pretty impossible to check. There's an obvious moral question there, which I will leave up to you.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljn832

fljmhz7

I don't think you are selfish. I think, in normal circumstances, the state should provide the necessary means of childcare such as kindergartens, parental leaves etc. But we are not under normal circumstances right now. Just imagine working on your usual schedule, but with kids at home, constantly wanting attention, food, yelling, maybe fighting with each other. I can clearly see the point of assigning them less work. However, this doesn't mean you're selfish, and you have every right to feel annoyed. It's not your responsibility if they wanted to have kids. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a win-win solution for you, but maybe you should raise your concerns about overworking. Edit: forgot to add "should" in the second sentence

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljrqnd

fljr6nv

I don’t think it’s right to have different work expectations for those who do and don’t have children. Im a grad student in a department where most PhD students are married and have 1-3 kids. I often find that those students receive substantially more allowances and can get away with skipping things like “mandatory” colloquial because they have kids at home. I think it’s super insulting to treat people who have children as if their time is inherently more valuable than those that don’t. I’m definitely not someone who dislikes kids, I just don’t have any of my own yet. That said, it’s whack to act as if their personal, non-work related choice should affect workload.

I think you're not wrong to be bothered by a higher workload, but the amount of work that needs to get done per person has increased. While your colleagues have to spend more time each day to take care of their children, you get more of the work they usually do. It sucks for everyone. We have to lower our expectations a little bit if necessary.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljrqnd

fljmhz7

I don’t think it’s right to have different work expectations for those who do and don’t have children. Im a grad student in a department where most PhD students are married and have 1-3 kids. I often find that those students receive substantially more allowances and can get away with skipping things like “mandatory” colloquial because they have kids at home. I think it’s super insulting to treat people who have children as if their time is inherently more valuable than those that don’t. I’m definitely not someone who dislikes kids, I just don’t have any of my own yet. That said, it’s whack to act as if their personal, non-work related choice should affect workload.

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljrqnd

fljrd5x

I don’t think it’s right to have different work expectations for those who do and don’t have children. Im a grad student in a department where most PhD students are married and have 1-3 kids. I often find that those students receive substantially more allowances and can get away with skipping things like “mandatory” colloquial because they have kids at home. I think it’s super insulting to treat people who have children as if their time is inherently more valuable than those that don’t. I’m definitely not someone who dislikes kids, I just don’t have any of my own yet. That said, it’s whack to act as if their personal, non-work related choice should affect workload.

I think it is wrong of them to give you more work. On the other hand, I don't think there's a way out of it - there is very little to be gained by complaining, or worse refusing to do extra work. I suppose you could always lie. If you say "I know I don't have children, but actually I have elderly relatives that depend on me", whether or not that's true, it could get them off your back a bit, and it's pretty impossible to check. There's an obvious moral question there, which I will leave up to you.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljr6nv

fljvk9l

I think you're not wrong to be bothered by a higher workload, but the amount of work that needs to get done per person has increased. While your colleagues have to spend more time each day to take care of their children, you get more of the work they usually do. It sucks for everyone. We have to lower our expectations a little bit if necessary.

I think everyone is being expected to do more than they were previously. To take an in person course and convert it to an online one in a matter of a week or two weeks (in the case of my school) is an impossible task. Most online teachers have months to prepare the syllabus, recorded lectures and learn how to teach from a distance. For colleges there are a lot of resources, canvas, blackboard, licensed Zoom etc. My mother is a highschool ESL teacher and she's expected to flip her class online in a matter of a week with maybe a quarter of the resources and technological understanding. Luckily, her kids are grown and are good with technology lol. I think and know your feelings are valid, it sucks seeing others do less than you and sacrificing for them. As a parent I know they appreciate it. Educators, that are also parents are dealing with having to flip their classroom and trying to be there for their children, who are also experiencing great change and uncertainty. I know they feel as if they are failing in both areas. I think we need to cut everyone slack, this is unprecedented and there is so much uncertainty and not everything will go smoothly, and to expect it to it is unfair to both students and educators. I'm just an non-traditional undergrad student with three kids suddenly home with the same schedule of coursework. Two of my classes were labs (biochemistry and ecology) and I'm pissed that I won't get to have the same education that I paid for because of this pandemic. I'm also angry at myself and the situation because my oldest is scared and lonely without school and that I can't be there for her because I have so much to do, all the time. Everything just sucks right now and it's okay to be upset or angry. But don't take it out on other people, communicate your feelings and let people know what you can do and cannot do. You may have to suck up some but don't take on too much that it makes you bitter toward your colleagues.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljvk9l

fljmhz7

I think everyone is being expected to do more than they were previously. To take an in person course and convert it to an online one in a matter of a week or two weeks (in the case of my school) is an impossible task. Most online teachers have months to prepare the syllabus, recorded lectures and learn how to teach from a distance. For colleges there are a lot of resources, canvas, blackboard, licensed Zoom etc. My mother is a highschool ESL teacher and she's expected to flip her class online in a matter of a week with maybe a quarter of the resources and technological understanding. Luckily, her kids are grown and are good with technology lol. I think and know your feelings are valid, it sucks seeing others do less than you and sacrificing for them. As a parent I know they appreciate it. Educators, that are also parents are dealing with having to flip their classroom and trying to be there for their children, who are also experiencing great change and uncertainty. I know they feel as if they are failing in both areas. I think we need to cut everyone slack, this is unprecedented and there is so much uncertainty and not everything will go smoothly, and to expect it to it is unfair to both students and educators. I'm just an non-traditional undergrad student with three kids suddenly home with the same schedule of coursework. Two of my classes were labs (biochemistry and ecology) and I'm pissed that I won't get to have the same education that I paid for because of this pandemic. I'm also angry at myself and the situation because my oldest is scared and lonely without school and that I can't be there for her because I have so much to do, all the time. Everything just sucks right now and it's okay to be upset or angry. But don't take it out on other people, communicate your feelings and let people know what you can do and cannot do. You may have to suck up some but don't take on too much that it makes you bitter toward your colleagues.

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljrd5x

fljvk9l

I think it is wrong of them to give you more work. On the other hand, I don't think there's a way out of it - there is very little to be gained by complaining, or worse refusing to do extra work. I suppose you could always lie. If you say "I know I don't have children, but actually I have elderly relatives that depend on me", whether or not that's true, it could get them off your back a bit, and it's pretty impossible to check. There's an obvious moral question there, which I will leave up to you.

I think everyone is being expected to do more than they were previously. To take an in person course and convert it to an online one in a matter of a week or two weeks (in the case of my school) is an impossible task. Most online teachers have months to prepare the syllabus, recorded lectures and learn how to teach from a distance. For colleges there are a lot of resources, canvas, blackboard, licensed Zoom etc. My mother is a highschool ESL teacher and she's expected to flip her class online in a matter of a week with maybe a quarter of the resources and technological understanding. Luckily, her kids are grown and are good with technology lol. I think and know your feelings are valid, it sucks seeing others do less than you and sacrificing for them. As a parent I know they appreciate it. Educators, that are also parents are dealing with having to flip their classroom and trying to be there for their children, who are also experiencing great change and uncertainty. I know they feel as if they are failing in both areas. I think we need to cut everyone slack, this is unprecedented and there is so much uncertainty and not everything will go smoothly, and to expect it to it is unfair to both students and educators. I'm just an non-traditional undergrad student with three kids suddenly home with the same schedule of coursework. Two of my classes were labs (biochemistry and ecology) and I'm pissed that I won't get to have the same education that I paid for because of this pandemic. I'm also angry at myself and the situation because my oldest is scared and lonely without school and that I can't be there for her because I have so much to do, all the time. Everything just sucks right now and it's okay to be upset or angry. But don't take it out on other people, communicate your feelings and let people know what you can do and cannot do. You may have to suck up some but don't take on too much that it makes you bitter toward your colleagues.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljr6nv

fljmhz7

I think you're not wrong to be bothered by a higher workload, but the amount of work that needs to get done per person has increased. While your colleagues have to spend more time each day to take care of their children, you get more of the work they usually do. It sucks for everyone. We have to lower our expectations a little bit if necessary.

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljmhz7

fljwl4p

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

You're not being selfish, and you're certainly not an asshole. That being said, I have kids, and I was prepared to drop everything that had to do with work so I could take care of them. Right now, I'm trying to homeschool both kids while working from home and it really sucks, but I don't have a choice. I don't know what you're situation is, but if my colleagues who didn't have kids were able to pick up the slack so I could make sure my son graduates high school I would be eternally grateful. Luckily I'm able to keep it all together for now, but I don't know for how long. I would never ever ever expect my colleagues to pick up my work under non-pandemic circumstances. I know what I got myself into by having kids. But these are times in which none of us have ever experienced and my number one priority is to my children. I still don't think you're an asshole for feeling the way you do, though. Your feelings are very valid, and everyone is so tense right now. I don't know if you're asking for advice, but maybe you could just hang in there for now and then make your feelings known when this is all over.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljrd5x

fljwl4p

I think it is wrong of them to give you more work. On the other hand, I don't think there's a way out of it - there is very little to be gained by complaining, or worse refusing to do extra work. I suppose you could always lie. If you say "I know I don't have children, but actually I have elderly relatives that depend on me", whether or not that's true, it could get them off your back a bit, and it's pretty impossible to check. There's an obvious moral question there, which I will leave up to you.

You're not being selfish, and you're certainly not an asshole. That being said, I have kids, and I was prepared to drop everything that had to do with work so I could take care of them. Right now, I'm trying to homeschool both kids while working from home and it really sucks, but I don't have a choice. I don't know what you're situation is, but if my colleagues who didn't have kids were able to pick up the slack so I could make sure my son graduates high school I would be eternally grateful. Luckily I'm able to keep it all together for now, but I don't know for how long. I would never ever ever expect my colleagues to pick up my work under non-pandemic circumstances. I know what I got myself into by having kids. But these are times in which none of us have ever experienced and my number one priority is to my children. I still don't think you're an asshole for feeling the way you do, though. Your feelings are very valid, and everyone is so tense right now. I don't know if you're asking for advice, but maybe you could just hang in there for now and then make your feelings known when this is all over.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljmhz7

flkshir

No, it isn't wrong. Children or no, each faculty member ought to shoulder a fair load of service, teaching, and research. The problem is that stuff is rarely tracked well (especially service) and people with children often get special exceptions for certain forms of service. > I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up? How much do you think you'll get recognition or compensation for doing this extra work?

Asshole? No. Feeling annoyed by the inconvenience of this whole situation is normal and understandable. Need to suck it up? In this current situation? Yes. These parents aren't just choosing to ignore their work. For the safety of themselves and others (including you), they're being asked to adjust their home lives. That adjustment means they will have less time to spend on their own work. By not sending their kids out into someone else's care, they're providing you (and everyone else who could possibly be infected) the service of reducing spread.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljzh69

flkshir

I'm curious how are you getting more work than everyone else. Are you doing more than just handling the transition of your own courses to online delivery? I'm a lecturer too (childless, single) and I'm only responsible for my own courses, other faculty are only responsible for their own courses regardless of whether they have children or not.

Asshole? No. Feeling annoyed by the inconvenience of this whole situation is normal and understandable. Need to suck it up? In this current situation? Yes. These parents aren't just choosing to ignore their work. For the safety of themselves and others (including you), they're being asked to adjust their home lives. That adjustment means they will have less time to spend on their own work. By not sending their kids out into someone else's care, they're providing you (and everyone else who could possibly be infected) the service of reducing spread.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljz9uq

flkshir

I don't think you're an asshole for feeling stressed by the fact that your work load has increased professionally while you're coworkers' has not. I think it's a little selfish of you if you can't see why reasonably the childless lecturers are the ones taking up the extra slack (but you seem to be sensitive to your colleagues' situations). ​ I do think it's bad management if you're not recognized and thanked for pulling extra weight during this time. Yes, your colleagues are struggling with balancing their workload with a sudden increase in the amount of time they have to supervise, stimulate, and teach their children. But you're struggling with balancing your workload that is growing to accomodate the hardships they're going through. You deserve props. You deserve thanks. You deserve respect. You deserve this to come up at your review. I also really, really hope this department would be kind enough to you if you encounter a similarly difficult situation - ie you get sick during this time, you begin helping out a relative during this time, etc.

Asshole? No. Feeling annoyed by the inconvenience of this whole situation is normal and understandable. Need to suck it up? In this current situation? Yes. These parents aren't just choosing to ignore their work. For the safety of themselves and others (including you), they're being asked to adjust their home lives. That adjustment means they will have less time to spend on their own work. By not sending their kids out into someone else's care, they're providing you (and everyone else who could possibly be infected) the service of reducing spread.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

flkshir

fljrd5x

Asshole? No. Feeling annoyed by the inconvenience of this whole situation is normal and understandable. Need to suck it up? In this current situation? Yes. These parents aren't just choosing to ignore their work. For the safety of themselves and others (including you), they're being asked to adjust their home lives. That adjustment means they will have less time to spend on their own work. By not sending their kids out into someone else's care, they're providing you (and everyone else who could possibly be infected) the service of reducing spread.

I think it is wrong of them to give you more work. On the other hand, I don't think there's a way out of it - there is very little to be gained by complaining, or worse refusing to do extra work. I suppose you could always lie. If you say "I know I don't have children, but actually I have elderly relatives that depend on me", whether or not that's true, it could get them off your back a bit, and it's pretty impossible to check. There's an obvious moral question there, which I will leave up to you.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

flk7sxk

flkshir

I've been in this situation during my PhD. My advisor had to choose between me and a classmate for a semester of TA duty, and he made me do it because "oh, he has children". I'm still bitter about that, over a decade later.

Asshole? No. Feeling annoyed by the inconvenience of this whole situation is normal and understandable. Need to suck it up? In this current situation? Yes. These parents aren't just choosing to ignore their work. For the safety of themselves and others (including you), they're being asked to adjust their home lives. That adjustment means they will have less time to spend on their own work. By not sending their kids out into someone else's care, they're providing you (and everyone else who could possibly be infected) the service of reducing spread.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

flk21nx

flkshir

I have a toddler at home, both parents working full time, and I don’t think you’re selfish. Nevertheless, I feel like you should suck it up - times are extraordinary, and you never know when you’ll need your colleagues to have your back too. I’m personally working all hours of the day when I’m not looking after my daughter. I have no free time at all, including weekends.

Asshole? No. Feeling annoyed by the inconvenience of this whole situation is normal and understandable. Need to suck it up? In this current situation? Yes. These parents aren't just choosing to ignore their work. For the safety of themselves and others (including you), they're being asked to adjust their home lives. That adjustment means they will have less time to spend on their own work. By not sending their kids out into someone else's care, they're providing you (and everyone else who could possibly be infected) the service of reducing spread.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

flkshir

flk3g5s

Asshole? No. Feeling annoyed by the inconvenience of this whole situation is normal and understandable. Need to suck it up? In this current situation? Yes. These parents aren't just choosing to ignore their work. For the safety of themselves and others (including you), they're being asked to adjust their home lives. That adjustment means they will have less time to spend on their own work. By not sending their kids out into someone else's care, they're providing you (and everyone else who could possibly be infected) the service of reducing spread.

> I'm a lecturer Are you paid as much as your TT colleagues? Do you have benefits? Do you have job security once this semester ends? I think my answer would be different if you were asked to pick up slack after another non-TT colleague who has to juggle childcare as well as not knowing where their next meal is coming from, and if you were asked to pick up the slack of people with job security who also happen to have children. I think people need to ask themselves what they can afford and only ask for help if they really can't afford not to. I don't think people with children blanket need more help than people without children. I don't think this is the time to play identity politics.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljxvmp

flkshir

Just remember, most of the folks who are looking after young kids would love nothing more than to be sitting at their computer working. Most would trade places in a heartbeat.

Asshole? No. Feeling annoyed by the inconvenience of this whole situation is normal and understandable. Need to suck it up? In this current situation? Yes. These parents aren't just choosing to ignore their work. For the safety of themselves and others (including you), they're being asked to adjust their home lives. That adjustment means they will have less time to spend on their own work. By not sending their kids out into someone else's care, they're providing you (and everyone else who could possibly be infected) the service of reducing spread.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

flkshir

flkr32z

Asshole? No. Feeling annoyed by the inconvenience of this whole situation is normal and understandable. Need to suck it up? In this current situation? Yes. These parents aren't just choosing to ignore their work. For the safety of themselves and others (including you), they're being asked to adjust their home lives. That adjustment means they will have less time to spend on their own work. By not sending their kids out into someone else's care, they're providing you (and everyone else who could possibly be infected) the service of reducing spread.

I'm not known for being emphatic. I think you should suck it up. Here's why. When I was a kid with autism in highschool my special ed counselor person told me fair and equal are not the same. She said everyone should be treated fairly. But not necessarily equally. Idk. That has stuck with me my whole life every time I question weather it's "fair" and usually it's not equal but it is fair. If you can't do it tell your boss hey I can't handle this. NBut if you can handle it. Do it. A family member told me "embrace the tension, life doesn't get any easier" it just gets different. I would think you could probably take on even more right now one way or another. P.s. some people have said I don't think your being selfish or selfless but that's kind of a loaded question cuase no one is perfectly selfless or 100 percent selfish. Life just doesn't really work that way. P.s.s when/if you have kids and are in a situation like this how would you like your peers to treat you?

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljzh69

fljz9uq

I'm curious how are you getting more work than everyone else. Are you doing more than just handling the transition of your own courses to online delivery? I'm a lecturer too (childless, single) and I'm only responsible for my own courses, other faculty are only responsible for their own courses regardless of whether they have children or not.

I don't think you're an asshole for feeling stressed by the fact that your work load has increased professionally while you're coworkers' has not. I think it's a little selfish of you if you can't see why reasonably the childless lecturers are the ones taking up the extra slack (but you seem to be sensitive to your colleagues' situations). ​ I do think it's bad management if you're not recognized and thanked for pulling extra weight during this time. Yes, your colleagues are struggling with balancing their workload with a sudden increase in the amount of time they have to supervise, stimulate, and teach their children. But you're struggling with balancing your workload that is growing to accomodate the hardships they're going through. You deserve props. You deserve thanks. You deserve respect. You deserve this to come up at your review. I also really, really hope this department would be kind enough to you if you encounter a similarly difficult situation - ie you get sick during this time, you begin helping out a relative during this time, etc.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljrd5x

fljzh69

I think it is wrong of them to give you more work. On the other hand, I don't think there's a way out of it - there is very little to be gained by complaining, or worse refusing to do extra work. I suppose you could always lie. If you say "I know I don't have children, but actually I have elderly relatives that depend on me", whether or not that's true, it could get them off your back a bit, and it's pretty impossible to check. There's an obvious moral question there, which I will leave up to you.

I'm curious how are you getting more work than everyone else. Are you doing more than just handling the transition of your own courses to online delivery? I'm a lecturer too (childless, single) and I'm only responsible for my own courses, other faculty are only responsible for their own courses regardless of whether they have children or not.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljxvmp

fljzh69

Just remember, most of the folks who are looking after young kids would love nothing more than to be sitting at their computer working. Most would trade places in a heartbeat.

I'm curious how are you getting more work than everyone else. Are you doing more than just handling the transition of your own courses to online delivery? I'm a lecturer too (childless, single) and I'm only responsible for my own courses, other faculty are only responsible for their own courses regardless of whether they have children or not.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljz9uq

fll4kmp

I don't think you're an asshole for feeling stressed by the fact that your work load has increased professionally while you're coworkers' has not. I think it's a little selfish of you if you can't see why reasonably the childless lecturers are the ones taking up the extra slack (but you seem to be sensitive to your colleagues' situations). ​ I do think it's bad management if you're not recognized and thanked for pulling extra weight during this time. Yes, your colleagues are struggling with balancing their workload with a sudden increase in the amount of time they have to supervise, stimulate, and teach their children. But you're struggling with balancing your workload that is growing to accomodate the hardships they're going through. You deserve props. You deserve thanks. You deserve respect. You deserve this to come up at your review. I also really, really hope this department would be kind enough to you if you encounter a similarly difficult situation - ie you get sick during this time, you begin helping out a relative during this time, etc.

Not wrong to feel that way. Just to take things out of the academic context, a friend in a medium-sized business told me today he's dumping as much work as he can on his employees without families. (He's married, wife works, two small kids, everyone stuck at home.) "It's not fair to [those employees], but we've got to get our work done or our company doesn't make money. I'm doing as much as I can, but I don't have a choice about whether to spend half my time on parenting and schooling." So at this point it's not a matter of fairness, yet. It's about keeping things running, and work is just going to have to flow to people with fungible time.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljrd5x

fljz9uq

I think it is wrong of them to give you more work. On the other hand, I don't think there's a way out of it - there is very little to be gained by complaining, or worse refusing to do extra work. I suppose you could always lie. If you say "I know I don't have children, but actually I have elderly relatives that depend on me", whether or not that's true, it could get them off your back a bit, and it's pretty impossible to check. There's an obvious moral question there, which I will leave up to you.

I don't think you're an asshole for feeling stressed by the fact that your work load has increased professionally while you're coworkers' has not. I think it's a little selfish of you if you can't see why reasonably the childless lecturers are the ones taking up the extra slack (but you seem to be sensitive to your colleagues' situations). ​ I do think it's bad management if you're not recognized and thanked for pulling extra weight during this time. Yes, your colleagues are struggling with balancing their workload with a sudden increase in the amount of time they have to supervise, stimulate, and teach their children. But you're struggling with balancing your workload that is growing to accomodate the hardships they're going through. You deserve props. You deserve thanks. You deserve respect. You deserve this to come up at your review. I also really, really hope this department would be kind enough to you if you encounter a similarly difficult situation - ie you get sick during this time, you begin helping out a relative during this time, etc.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljz9uq

fllaqhp

I don't think you're an asshole for feeling stressed by the fact that your work load has increased professionally while you're coworkers' has not. I think it's a little selfish of you if you can't see why reasonably the childless lecturers are the ones taking up the extra slack (but you seem to be sensitive to your colleagues' situations). ​ I do think it's bad management if you're not recognized and thanked for pulling extra weight during this time. Yes, your colleagues are struggling with balancing their workload with a sudden increase in the amount of time they have to supervise, stimulate, and teach their children. But you're struggling with balancing your workload that is growing to accomodate the hardships they're going through. You deserve props. You deserve thanks. You deserve respect. You deserve this to come up at your review. I also really, really hope this department would be kind enough to you if you encounter a similarly difficult situation - ie you get sick during this time, you begin helping out a relative during this time, etc.

I say in normal times it would be unfair and wrong. In this emergency I think you should try to see the bigger picture and step up as much as you can.... AND you should feel GOOD about doing that. This is a scary time for these kids too (I have kids) they need a little more attention. These are little humans that you will be sharing the planet with... helping out here is doing the right thing and doing the right thing feels good. And I dare say it will come back around without you needing to track the extra minutes and reminding people later. Better to be known as someone who steps up. Especially as you plan to have kids and these same people who knows their kids may be older then and shoe will be on other foot. Step up, for the right reasons.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljxvmp

fljz9uq

Just remember, most of the folks who are looking after young kids would love nothing more than to be sitting at their computer working. Most would trade places in a heartbeat.

I don't think you're an asshole for feeling stressed by the fact that your work load has increased professionally while you're coworkers' has not. I think it's a little selfish of you if you can't see why reasonably the childless lecturers are the ones taking up the extra slack (but you seem to be sensitive to your colleagues' situations). ​ I do think it's bad management if you're not recognized and thanked for pulling extra weight during this time. Yes, your colleagues are struggling with balancing their workload with a sudden increase in the amount of time they have to supervise, stimulate, and teach their children. But you're struggling with balancing your workload that is growing to accomodate the hardships they're going through. You deserve props. You deserve thanks. You deserve respect. You deserve this to come up at your review. I also really, really hope this department would be kind enough to you if you encounter a similarly difficult situation - ie you get sick during this time, you begin helping out a relative during this time, etc.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

fljrd5x

fll4kmp

I think it is wrong of them to give you more work. On the other hand, I don't think there's a way out of it - there is very little to be gained by complaining, or worse refusing to do extra work. I suppose you could always lie. If you say "I know I don't have children, but actually I have elderly relatives that depend on me", whether or not that's true, it could get them off your back a bit, and it's pretty impossible to check. There's an obvious moral question there, which I will leave up to you.

Not wrong to feel that way. Just to take things out of the academic context, a friend in a medium-sized business told me today he's dumping as much work as he can on his employees without families. (He's married, wife works, two small kids, everyone stuck at home.) "It's not fair to [those employees], but we've got to get our work done or our company doesn't make money. I'm doing as much as I can, but I don't have a choice about whether to spend half my time on parenting and schooling." So at this point it's not a matter of fairness, yet. It's about keeping things running, and work is just going to have to flow to people with fungible time.

fp90z7

askacademia_train

I feel like an asshole asking, but is it wrong to feel like I shouldn't get MORE work than my colleagues with children just because I haven't got children yet? I feel like a complete asshole asking this, as I know it's an emergency situation and the normal rules go out the window. I'm a lecturer, and it feels like management are giving extra work to those of us who don't have children, or whose children are grown up. I'm not in a stage of my life where children are possible at the moment (hopefully soon), but I feel angry and upset that myself and other colleagues without children are getting all the extra work that is normally shared across all colleagues equally. Obviously I'm aware that colleagues who do have children are having to juggle work and their family situation, so I feel like I'm being unreasonable, but at the same time, this is work that I wouldn't have normally had in the usual non-COVID circumstances. What do you think? I am right to feel annoyed, or am I being a selfish asshole and need to suck it up?

flk7sxk

fll4kmp

I've been in this situation during my PhD. My advisor had to choose between me and a classmate for a semester of TA duty, and he made me do it because "oh, he has children". I'm still bitter about that, over a decade later.

Not wrong to feel that way. Just to take things out of the academic context, a friend in a medium-sized business told me today he's dumping as much work as he can on his employees without families. (He's married, wife works, two small kids, everyone stuck at home.) "It's not fair to [those employees], but we've got to get our work done or our company doesn't make money. I'm doing as much as I can, but I don't have a choice about whether to spend half my time on parenting and schooling." So at this point it's not a matter of fairness, yet. It's about keeping things running, and work is just going to have to flow to people with fungible time.