I'm a graduate student right now, and I actually found the Science
issue quite encouraging. I didn't pick up on the lack of women
interviewed. I guess I always thought what applied to men also
applied to me career wise and there were a few women who agreed
with the men.
I got the hope, that if I just be myself I would fit in
somewhere. It also indicated some skills that I should continue
to improve in grad school. For example, communication, grant
writing and leadership/teaching. Luckily, this is what I like to
I see myself definitely as a lab manager type person. The article
showed that I could do this in industry or academics. Something I
didn't realize before.
Another lesson confirmed by the issue, that I have been learning
all through grad school. You can't be afraid to approach and talk
to people, even if you think that they MIGHT think you are
stupid. This has been hard for me to learn and I am still learning!!!
To me, the issue said careers in science are tough to create and
maintain, but are possible if you don't sabotage yourself by not
writing grants properly, by not making contacts in the science
world, and by being narrow-minded in your research pursuits. Some
luck might also be involved in chosing the right field at the
right time, but I don't think luck will make your career. I feel
that you make your career.
Just curious about your thoughts on the article on removing tenure for scientists.
This was portrayed as negative. Anyone agree and why? To me it
would be awfully stressful having contract negotiations every 5
to 10 years, but it might be good for maintaining high quality of
teaching and research ( i.e. now that I've got tenure I can relax a
Interested in feedback from more "experienced" women in
ktetro at acs.ucalgary.ca