By JoEllen McBride
Credit: Tod Strohmayer (GSFC), CXC, NASA
Illustration: Dana Berry (CXC)
A few months ago I spoke with Kim-Vy Tran, a professor of astrophysics at New South Wales University, about her experiences with the 2-body problem. She agreed to have our conversation posted on the blog. It has been edited for clarity and to remove our discussions on being a cat mom. We can share that in a later post (only kidding).
Jo McBride: You mentioned that you and your partner have gone through multiple experiences with the 2-body problem. Can you describe that for us?
Kim-Vy Tran: I can give you a short summary. That's probably really complicated, as with many of these issues. So my husband is a theoretical physicist, and we met in grad school decades ago. We actually married when I was finishing up. He got his PhD a year ahead of me.
We were able to get postdoctoral positions together in Switzerland, which was a great opportunity. I had intended on staying in the US, but his family is in Europe, and at the time, it was a chance to be closer to his parents, who I didn't really know very well.
So we went to a major university in Switzerland, and I ended up at the center of the bullying situation that you may have heard of because I was the first postdoc that was hired into that group which has now been disbanded. That's a whole other story. For me, it was a very challenging environment, but as a result, I grew a lot. And most importantly, we were able to be together and I was able to get to know his family more. Also just living in Switzerland was wonderful. Living abroad is really a transformative experience.
And then we were kind of not sure what to do after that. And so applied everywhere. And there was an opportunity for remote fellowships because Switzerland is very small and there are not that many jobs or options. So for a year, I kind of worked remotely since I was very fortunate and got awarded this fellowship. I was definitely very focused on research, but I would go and spend part of my time at my host institution and the rest of the time at my home base in Switzerland.
While in Switzerland we got what we call faculty fellowships. They are independent fellowships that provide enough money to start your own team. They were very competitive, but it allowed us a lot of freedom and independence so we could explore other job opportunities.
And then we got an opportunity to come back to the US at a major research university in Texas. There was already some baggage with that because we applied separately even though it's the same department. He's in a condensed matter and I'm in Astro. They wanted to hire me and then they found out that he had also applied so even though he was on their shortlist, somehow he got this label as being the second hire. Also, the condensed matter group at this Texas university is extremely toxic compared to other places. So we started off not in the best situation possible there. For me, the Astro group was actually a really great place, but for him, it was toxic from day one.
JM: So there was contention because he was the “second hire?” Even though he made the shortlist?
KVT: Yes, even though he was the only person in the condensed matter group who actually had a major grant (he got an NSF career grant). He brought in like $2 million in grant money in the first three years. I mean, for a theorist, it was ridiculous.
JM: So when you both applied to this Texas university, you said that they noticed that you had both applied and then made him an offer.
KVT: Yes. In my mind, if anything, we did exactly what we should have done which is apply separately and made it by individual merits to the hiring to shortlist.
Also, the small university town in Texas wasn't really a place that we envisioned being long term. So after about two or three years, we were already starting to figure out what to do. We were like we can't stay here. It was actually a very dark time because his work environment was super toxic. And we also had during that time three out of four of our parents were very ill, fortunately, they are now fine. It was just life stuff that happens at the same time you’re trying to figure out whether to move to another position or something.
It was tough. I built a strong program and got to work with really great students. But he was clearly unhappy, and I just didn't want to be in this Texas town for more than I absolutely had to.
JM: Just to clarify, so both of you got tenure at this Texas university?
KVT: Yeah. Both promoted to full professor, both tenured.
I called it the golden handcuffs because when you get tenure at a tier-one research university, not just one, but both of you, you're sort of taught from a very young age that this is what you've always wanted right? Now, you should be absolutely happy. Everything should be perfect, and you should never want for anything else. And we realized that the further up we climbed in that ranking that this wasn’t what we wanted.
So we began applying to other institutions. We had the opportunity to join the University of New South Wales in Australia. But it wasn't a great offer. I took it because I was like we need to do something else. He took it as well, but problems at the university in Texas meant he couldn’t start the position when required and so the offer expired.
JM: So when you applied to the University of New South Wales, did you make it clear from the beginning that you were trying to be hired together?
KVT: They were also hiring in those two areas, condensed matter and Astro. So I think a lot of times if you're in the same department it helps. We applied separately, but I'm pretty sure that they figured out because one of the people in the hiring committee was actually a colleague of mine.
JM: It seems that the way y’all handled applying for jobs was you both applied separately and then, usually, the school figured out that you two were together.
KVT: I think if anyone had asked I would have told them. So it's interesting, my husband, his position was, legally they can't ask so I'm not going to tell them. And my position was well, look, they know, if they're smart, that they're going to get two high caliber people for the price of one. But basically, you have two people who've made the long list because honestly, everybody who is applying is very strong at this point. People are like, oh, but you know, so and so is only second on the list versus this person who is six on the list and it's like yeah, of 150 people!
JM: Yeah. It's ridiculous. The amount of differences in ranking are so minuscule.
KVT: It's well within the noise as I like to say. I think if you had this conversation with him he would definitely come from a different perspective in terms of what the strategy would be. I mean, in my mind, it wasn't something that would be a negative or positive. It was just something that was a fact.
JM: I know couples who applied separately. And then after one of them got an offer, they would make it clear that they had a partner who had also applied for this other position. That's why I was clarifying that because I feel like people are going to approach that part of it differently. And I think that's something the blog should definitely highlight because it's just interesting how people approach it.
JM: So, what was your partner doing during this time?
KVT: He'd been doing consulting on the side with quantum computing while we were in Texas. The companies he was working for got word that he was available and Microsoft wanted to hire him into their quantum division. They started making offers.
Having gone to graduate school in the Bay Area, we have a lot of people who ended up going into IT tech startups. We asked them for advice and at some point, they said if you don't at least try you'd be an idiot. So he started at Microsoft, essentially the equivalent of a full professor. It's kind of like the way Bell Labs used to be where it was just purely research. He started there in the middle of last year (2018), so he's been there now for almost a year and a half, and he loves it. He's hired a team of researchers. It's essentially all the good things about academia for him with none of the baggage so that's working well.
But it has put me in the middle because that basically means we relocated to Seattle. I still work at UNSW and they're much more understanding of my situation. So I go there to teach and am mostly based here in Seattle. I do a lot of my team supervision and meetings etc. all online. And then I go there about five times a year for a few weeks each time for teaching. So I do teach but the way that teaching is structured there you teach in modules, which are held for three to four weeks or so.
JM: So what do you think about the way that the University of New South Wales structures their faculty teaching requirements? Do you think that helps with the two-body problem?
KVT: Yeah, so we do team teaching which has helped a lot, so in Texas they did full-term teaching, which is understandable—that's the way things usually are. That would mean 15 weeks away from my husband. At UNSW, every course is taught by two sets of faculty members. It does require some coordination.
So let's say it's an astronomy course and I teach the physics part, which is special relativity and basic mechanics. And then my colleague will take over and teach stellar. And then I'll pick up and teach galaxies and cosmology. So that you break things up into three-week chunks. And the students stay fresh and get to know a variety of lecturers who then are teaching what they specialize in and then lecturers also stay fresh. When teaching 15 weeks usually by week 8 I'm done.
So this frees you up to go to conferences. You can host collaborative visits, work on the other, say administrative or community work that one does, serve on committees, review proposals. If teaching a full term, when you're invited to give colloquia, you'd have to find somebody else to teach your classes. But team teaching allows you to have a flexibility that integrates the rest of your responsibilities as a research academic or teaching academic or administrative academic and building that into the larger community.
JM: So what were both of your priorities, say when you were leaving Switzerland and leaving Texas? Can you talk a little bit about that?
KVT: I find it very strange that only in academia do you have to ask what am I gonna do in five years? The only way to be successful is by getting a permanent position that you could never be fired from. No other profession has this. It's just so ridiculous. This is part of the larger discussion that we need to talk about culturally because honestly, people who are tenured many of them really should not have that protection. I mean, if you think about it, we're not even talking about the scandals where people were harassing or bullying. There are those, but then there are also those who, once they got tenured, just lay back and did nothing but put up roadblocks for incoming people.
In terms of priorities, at that time when we left we were like, okay. We want something that that's, quote permanent, stability. When you're in your late 20s, early 30s at that point, you're like, we want to settle down. We don't have to think about having to move again. So that's why we took the jobs in Texas.
And as I said golden handcuffs. You know, we both got NSF grants. We were doing everything. We were building collaborations and taking on students. We did everything we were supposed to do.
JM: It sounds like y’all realized that your priorities changed and made the best choices for you both in both situations. And I want to recognize how important that is. You also mentioned that you have done some research on the 2-body problem? What did you learn from that?
KVT: A year ago, I was leading a task force, a working group, to figure out what other programs were doing to address the two-body problem. I contacted people I knew who were the heads of departments, it wasn't that thorough to be fair I'm talking about like, five or six people. It wasn't exhaustive. And everybody was like, “Oh, we don't really have a standard policy.” Sometimes they give you like five years of funding for your partner. But everybody was like, “If you figure out a way to do this, please let me know. Because this is a problem that we face all the time.” And to me, it's just shocking, because think about how many people, how many smart capable people, who have gone through this, are going through this, and will have to deal with this, and we still haven't solved or at least provided any effective framework that can be applied broadly.
JM: People we've talked to have basically said the same thing, like the very first blog post we did on this. All you could conclude from that is this is what they do, but it's a case by case thing. They're just sort of making it up as they go. That's why the committee put this as one of our priorities for the Astro 2020 Decadal Survey. It's been long enough.
KVT: Also, as we know, it disproportionately affects minorities. Right?
JM: Exactly. My husband is also a physicist, a computational physicist, and I'm an astronomer, but I'm no longer a faculty. And on paper, I followed him. He got his degree before me because I had a baby and sort of took a year off. And then he finished and we moved out here to Philly because he got a tenure track position. I tried to be an adjunct but it was part-time. So, now I'm just a writer for Penn Medicine. I don't work in astronomy. I was done dealing with trying to find an academic position.
KVT: Yeah, as I said we don't have kids. I mean, we like kids. But we could not have been ping-ponging around as much as we do if we had kids. It would just not even be an option. And even now, I have to say I'm a little conflicted because my husband is super happy. Microsoft pays really well. We live in Seattle now, which is a beautiful part of the country. I couldn't be happier honestly in terms of location, and I work in Sydney, which is also one of the most beautiful cities in the world. But on paper, I followed him.
On the other hand, I was also quite ready to do something different because I've done the faculty thing now for a while. And there are some things about it that I found really frustrating, especially in the US system, because of the way you have to apply for grants all the time. You have to everywhere else too. But in Australia, it's different. It is also quite different nowadays because our careers are so much longer than they were in the past. I still very much want to do research with my team simply because I want to provide an environment for people to reach their goals and do fun science. So for me, that's the part I liked, facilitating, it brings a lot of value. That's why I do want to continue. I’ve seen the things that frustrate me, I've worked as well as I can in the space that I inhabited. So how do I change my environment and my opportunities and resources so that I can do more.
JM: I have often wondered if I didn't have to wait a year to graduate how would it be different? Would I still be in academia or not? You don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm also happy where I am. I was not happy in academia.
KVT: I think that's honestly the best gauge. I try to tell my team members, “Look, I can tell you that achieving everything you're told is going to make you happy will not make you happy.” The only advice I have is to give yourself permission to reflect on what really brings meaning into your life. And if it's not aligned with what other people tell you, you're the person who has to live your life. Not them!
JM: So, speaking of that, what kind of advice do you have for people dealing with the 2-body problem?
KVT: Make sure you talk to your partner first. You have to be very honest about what are we willing to consider and what are we not going to consider? I mean, you and your partner, at this point, you gotta go as a team. When my partner was bargaining with Microsoft, he's like, well, my wife's gonna have to give up a job. So we have to make her salary and mine combined.” And they're like, “all right, fine. You make a good point.”
I think it just depends on the person or their temperament. And it depends, unfortunately from what I've discovered from my very informal survey of contacting chairs of departments and what hiring is, that it is very individual. And it's hard because you're already in a very stressful situation. Is this going to help or is this not going to help? Is this ruining my chances or not?
If you know someone on the hiring committee, chances are they already know that you're partnered. So you might as well bring it up. If they don't know, and it's not something that you feel is advantageous, then don't say.
And at this point, we've been talking about people whose partners are in physics and astronomy and there has been a lot of discussions that it is easier to do that because across faculties can be very difficult.
Yeah, so I guess have a game plan and be very communicative with your partner. And make sure that you have a really honest discussion about what your goals are, and also to recognize that your priorities and your goals will change with time.
Also, think about what it is that really is gonna make you happy not what other people tell you is going to make you happy. We were told that getting two faculty positions and getting tenure will make you happy. Maybe? Do you really want to wait 20-25 years to determine if that is true?
Kim-Vy Tran is a professor at the University of New South Wales and has been a professional astronomer for 20+ years. She received her PhD in Astronomy & Astrophysics from the University of California, Santa Cruz and held three postdoctoral fellowships in the U.S. and abroad. She has served as a professor at both national and international universities. She has given 150+ presentations at universities and conferences around the world.
Dr. Tran is passionate about promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion at all levels to recruit and retain world-class talent. Her work as an educator includes traditional classroom lectures as well as an expanding range of professional development workshops for scientists.
No comments :
Post a Comment