This NYT graphic summarizes key findings from Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz’s intriguing study of how taking time off effects the career prospects of various professional groups. It’s not surprising that MBAs – especially those who log long hours in finance and consulting – take the biggest career hit. For many the strategy is to front-load their careers, working hard and making boat loads of money when they are relatively young which they can enjoy later on in life. And most people understand that lawyers put in long hours as well. Understandably, the Times‘ story focuses on the relatively small hit taken by medical doctors.
But what really struck me is the result for PhDs, who suffered a 29 percent average financial penalty for taking time off. This was tied for second with lawyers and nearly double the penalty faced by medical doctors. This stands in contrast to the more popular perception of the inquisitive, free-flowing academic career. But like lawyers, consulting partners, and others in so-called “up-or-out” professions, young academics must put in especially long hours early-on to conduct their research, publish their papers, and achieve tenure. Taking time off is a huge risk at this stage of the game (at an age that coincides with child-bearing) – one that extends far beyond the immediate loss of salary.
One thing I have noticed over the past decade or so is that some of the very best PhDs I have come across – not just in social science but in computer science, engineering, and other scientific fields – have decided to opt out of academia for careers in everything from startups and consulting to think-tanks and non-profits. A common assumption is that they “did it for the money,” but most I’ve talked with say they simply did not want to endure what it would do to their “life.”
May 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Does this study account for a change in perspective that taking the time off might have created or been a part of?
For example, if you take off time to be with small children, you might decide that working 60 hours a week is ridiculous while they’re growing up and thus opt for a job with more balanced expectations and perhaps a related salary?
Even not having kids, if you took time off to travel, volunteer, or because of an illness, you also might decide that the 60 hour week just to get ahead career-wise is silly and opt to do something else.
In both cases, had you returned to the 60 hour a week life, your different experiences might have made you more productive and allowed further advancement. Just a theory.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:13 pm
I disagree with the last part. Someone with perspective is only going to alienate people who are working like hell to climb the ladder and want to believe in doing so. There’s a who-do-they-think-they-are mentality that will keep the more balanced person from advancing.