On 23 Jun 1997, Bharathi Jagadeesh wrote:
>> Vineeta Pal <vp25+ at andrew.cmu.edu> writes
> > why? maybe for someone who seriously wants to put her career before
> > anything else, this is not amusing and maybe helpful?
>> Well, I wrote without seriously considering, but the main reason
> that I suggested that it's not very helpful is most peple, these
> days, get tenure-track positions at the age of 30-35. It is possible
> to delay starting a committed relationship until then (or as is more
> common, engage in a series of semi-committed relationships that end
> with moves). But doing so entails significant sacrifices, and must
> involve an acceptance of the possibility of never marrying, and
> certainly of never having children, at least for women.
My god! I didn't realize that I was at such an advanced, decrepit age when
I got married :-). And that I was seriously in danger of never getting
married :-). And here I made it all the way down the aisle without
my walker :-). Seriously, unless you are going to have a lot of children,
30-35 is not too late, in my opinion to start a family. I know plenty of
women who have had them as late as 40.
One thing I noticed when I was in grad school is that the male post docs
and grad students were not marrying, or even dating, other scientists.
They tended toward secretaries and nurses.
For the record I married a non-scientist too. He is a computer network