Dave Blake

Also not true. Well-known that > 40-50 hour weeks leads to more stress, lower efficiency, more mistakes due to exhaustion, more health issues. Studies also argue parents are more efficient at multi-tasking and using time wisely=more productive.

Parents of young kids are stressed and exhausted. Claiming becoming a parent can overcome the time constraints by raising efficiency is a little disingenuous and in my observations definitely false.

Agree with the first part. That was not the claim. Many people who have work time restrictions (8 hour vs 12 hour days, self- or need-based) are often more efficient at using those 8 hours because they tend to plan each hour effieciently, parents included.

I agree with all of that, but still feel most parents of young children before less productive as a result. I say this as a scientist, parent, and PI of postdocs and students with kids. That is life.

Everybody is different. And if having kids affected your productivity, it doesn't mean it will be the same for the rest (at least not my case). But discouraging postdocs from having kids is just wrong. In the end you want to achieve balance in your life, not just in academia

A) I don't want to discourage postdocs from having kids (and never have). B) In my lab I don't maintain unreasonable time expectations and C) I do want prospective parents to have SOME realization of the massive time commitment it is being a "decent" parent.

This is unprofessional. In no profession should a manager assume they can express an opinion about this sort of thing to their employees.

"I don't want to discourage postdocs from having kids (and never have)" How do you not see that YOU JUST DID.

. I 100% believe that I am a better scientist because I have a strong family life and have people who motivate and nourish me. I 100% believe I am a better mom/partner because I have a profession that gives me the ability to do something that I love. #WorkLifeBalance #Academic

Sorry but I would strongly argue against time being the no 1 variable for being good at anything. For low amounts of time might be true. But it doesn't scale linearly for sure. For most people probably there is an optimum.

For being a parent time is number 1. There is no substitute. For being a scientist, it may not be. But a scientist with young kids competes for grants against those without families, and that is definitely a disadvantage.

Are you then suggesting that stay-at-home parents are better parents than working parents?

There are LOTS of data to support this in terms of child-rearing outcomes. But there are still roles for both parents. If one stays home, the contribution of the other still has a major impact.

Maybe people who manage a family and a job at the same time are good at recognizing it's not worth interacting with people who doubt they can succeed, so your experiences may not reflect reality.