to think it might be better to have your family before starting your career?

[nailak]

I was just reading a thread about a woman who 16 years after her son was born cannot get back in to a field that she has experience in because people would rather hire cheaper newly qualified staff.

So would it not be better to have a family, study while they are young, or before starting a family, then after they are at nursery/school go to work in entry level role?

or am i totally deluded?

What a load of twaddle OP.

Life doesn't follow a set pattern - things happen for different people at different times.

My mum has kids (me at nineteen) and then trained as a professional in her early thirties and forged a successful career.

I've got a successful career and has my first baby at 43 (the fact that I didnt have children sooner has nothing to do with having a career).

I got married in my early twenties to my uni boyfriend, worked in travel for several years, so was away for weeks at a time, then had my DDs in my late 20s because now-XH's job at the time meant I could be a SAHM. When I was pregnant with DD2 I started doing a bit of freelancing, and a whole new career developed out of that. I did a diploma via distance learning and then became a member of a professional body for my industry. It fits around the children beautifully, because I work from home.

I qualified as an exercise professional as well, in my late thirties, because single parenthood was looming, so I combined the two jobs, and then just took on more hours on the evenings XH had the DDs.

And when I met my new partner and became pregnant in my forties, I just carried on working, because my career by that stage was so family-oriented that I could. I didn't bother taking more than a couple of weeks' maternity leave, because I never told my clients I was pregnant because I didn't want them to think my brains had turned to mush I could NAK and still do jobs for clients.

So I think the secret to it for me has been to have a basket of jobs that I can choose from.

It really depends. I only met OH (ex now) when I was already doing a PhD.
And I made sure I had finished the PhD and started a post before having DS.

I only took 4 months maternity leave, though, and was in touch with work throughout. I even went to a congress (overnight) 2 months after the birth.

You can continue having a career after children, but you won't easily go back to your previous (high) level if you decide to be a SAHM for a number of years, particularly if it's an evolving field, like science or IT for example.
Accounting or the likes may be easier, particularly if you keep a PT job and don't lose the skills.

I started my career before having my children, was allowed a career break for 5 years then went back on the same salary but part time. Now the children are older I have just taken my final exam (and found out I passed today - yippee) which means I get a promotion.

If I hadn't have done most of my exams and gained that experience beforehand I would have at least 6 years of training to start which would be tough with two young children etc. I also would be on much lower money so I would not have been able to have such a long time off work with my DCs before they started school.

Oh and I didn't focus on my career, I was 25 when I was pregnant with DS1 but was qualified/experienced enough by that point as I was very focused that it allowed me the luxury of a long career break plus going back to a good job. My children will always come first!

Hm. I don't know. DB and his wife kind of did it that way - they had DCs quite young and after DSIL went and studied and is now working. From one perspective it's good, because you have the DCs, and you can, to an extent, focus more on building your career and have a 5/10 year plan which doesn't involve disappearing off into baby land at some point. There's also someone I know professionally who has been hugely successful - got married young, had DCs, was a mature student and went on from there. But, it does mean that in the early years of your career you're having to be out because of child care issues/having to leave AT 5 rather than being able to hang around etc.

I did it the other way around, or am doing it - A Levels, Uni, pro qualifications, working etc. and it is an advantage being unattached early on in your career, so you can stay til 11 if needed and you can show you're dedicated, which means it is possible to advance rapidly (and you can travel, have fun, hang out). BUT - I'm newly married and DH and I would like children in the near future, which means I need to take that into account in any career planning. Would it be a good idea to move roles/companies now, knowing that possibly in a few years I would need to go on Mat leave and might want to go down to PT. It would be easier to do so if I'm with the same people, and have already proved that I'm good and dedicated, rather than moving around.

Ultimately, there is no better way

bamboo no, I will be working long hours with a 3 year old child. Having her earlier meant that I won't be working long hours with a 4 month old, which would have been the likely alternative. Plus it meant I got a whole year at home with her.

It does seem to be very different depending on individual circumstances and choice of career. YANBU to think it's better for you to do that, but YABU to try and generalise.

We really mustn't forget, in discussions like this, that there's (usually) a man involved as well. For many women, there's no choice at all, because they want to bring up their children with a man.

I am another who has had a baby during medical school, for the same reasons as splash waves at splash
Most people wouldn't bat an eyelid at a man working long hours with a child of any age, why the questions when a mother chooses to do it?
Realistically there is no way I could manage pregnancy and maternity leave for at least another 4 years, so I had a baby in med school, took a whole year out and next year when I'm a junior working long hours my husband will reduce his hours and do the majority of childcare.
I asked myself what mattered to me the most- if I never had children or if I never had a career? Children was the one I wanted more, so if I make sacrifices in my career for the sake of having kids, that's ok with me. We all make the choices that work for us, it doesn't mean one person is right or wrong.

A friend of mine thought she was doing exactly what you suggest OP - had her kids young, then started her career, all going well, when ooops - unplanned DC4 was on the way and it all went to pot (in a good way but not for her career/ nicely mapped out life plan) :o

You can plan to do it the way that looks best to you, but so many factors may force you to change your plans (including as others have mentioned perhaps not meeting anyone you want to raise children with til your 30s, or thinking you don't want children then it suddenly hitting you with irresistible force that you really, really do want them more than anything, at age 38 - as also happened to one of my friends, who had a successful career which she gave up to have a family at 39).

Having an established career to go back to also works well for some.

Others are also happy to have a job, rather than a career, not everyone (male or female, not a feminist thing) lives to work, many work to live, a very different thing. :)

Interesting reading glabella and splash's POV. I decided against retraining as a doctor because I was nervous about putting off having kids for another 8 or so years. I sometimes wonder whether it's something I'll regret when I'm 40 and it really is too late.

There is no 'right way', obviously, but I think that some careers require the sort of energy you only have when you are young and child free, I mean, to properly get them off the ground.

Other jobs, though, perhaps not. I work with young people and you need a bit of maturity to do it. It would be perfect for a woman in her 30s or 40s with older children. In fact, social work and youth offending etc attract a lot of them, as it is. I have two colleagues who had children in their late teens/early twenties, went to uni when their kids started school, and worked their way up to senior management by mid thirties, when a lot of other women are dropping out of the game to have their first.

Hi glabella nice to see someone else who is in the same boat as me. There aren't many of us, at least not at my med.school. feel free to pm me if you want to chat :)

Summer if its something you want to do then I would say go for it. Having children at med school is perfectly doable. While its not always easy, its far easier than I expected!

"but I think that some careers require the sort of energy you only have when you are young and child free, I mean, to properly get them off the ground."

"I would never have managed a PGCE with three children, one with special needs.

I know some people do manage, but I couldn't have done it.

We couldn't have afforded children in our twenties. We were both 'building careers' but in London only ever managed to rent/buy a 1bed flat. It was only when we moved up north that we managed a two bed flat.

If money wasn't an issue I'd have had them at 25 but had to wait until I was 30. This killed my career. I am working now a battling for a new career but it is bloody tough with three kids.

But hey hi, you make your choices and then live with them.

This is me. Went to uni, married, bought house, had two children all by 26. Am now working part time (and paying an extortionate amount of childcare) and going nowhere career-wise for a few years.

But time is on my side and I know there is plenty of time to build a career, which helps in the moments I see my friends in great jobs and feel as though I am missing out. Luckily DH does very well for himself and can support us comfortably so money isn't too much of an issue but I feel a but of a failure sometimes.

A few older women have told me I'm doing things the "right" way round so I hope that turns out to be the case!

I did: uni-professional training- career- child-scale back career- no career- looking for scaled back career again. I'm now single, 47 with a 6 year old.

I don't see why that is inherently better or worse than doing it the other way around. For me the chances of doing it the other way around were slim to none - even if I had met anyone who I wanted to make babies with. My field (chartered accountancy) would not be at all keen on a mature student applying for a part time route to chartered accountancy with children. My training (post 3 years of Uni) took 3 years of hard slog - long hours and totally incompatible with a family life unless you have a fellow stay at home parent. Accountancy firms don't need to consider mature students who need flexible working hours, they are inundated with bright eyed, bushy tailed graduates who will work all the hours god sent for little money. I went on to have a successful and fulfilling career and only gave it up when illness/child/job became incompatible and health/child won!

On the upside I earned enough in the heady days to own my own home without a mortgage so I am able to take a part-time job now without too many money worries.

"Accountancy firms don't need to consider mature students who need flexible working hours, they are inundated with bright eyed, bushy tailed graduates who will work all the hours god sent for little money."

Same with the media - plenty of graduates prepared to work for no money too

I've also worked in PR and advertising - same there. Basically if you want to do a job which pays significantly more than the average then you need to start young and work your bollocks off because right or wrong thats how those industries operate. They need cannon fodder at the bottom or the work can;t get done profitably enough

It would be really really hard to establish yourself in my field (academia) whilst young.

These days, things are so competitive that you are expected to suck up all kinds of crap without complaining. For example, I remember in my first year in the job casually being given work at Friday lunchtime that had to be done by 9am Monday. Being told off for going home at 4.30pm once (I actually wasn't, just to another building!!). That kind of thing.

I gave so much to the job in the first few years and it would have been nigh-on impossible with sleep deprivation/ bouts of nursery-induced sickness/ having to leave at 5 every day. I'm sure some people do it but I just couldn't have, and I am pretty energetic!

I can't imagine it'd be easy either to get a 'serious' degree with babies and/or toddlers in the house! don not agree with these it is possible to get a good degree with children, just graduated in BA S/W with several other student/parents. But it is hard , not impossible though. I personally would not have kids then career and had a career before and after kids just not the same one.

I only know one career woman who didnt suffer as a result of having children. She was in the position to hand the baby to MIL at 3 months and work the long hours and do abroad postings. No one would have batted an eye lid had it been a man doing that.

Everyone else has never got back on the ladder where they got off. It is an arduous task, especially without support in place, not to be viewed as someone with less dedication - having to leave at 5 to get to the childminder, needing sports days off, having to have sudden leave to cover a childs sickness.

You can bang on about equality all you like, but very little has changed out there in the world. Women will always be viewed as the principle child carer, the mother will always be phoned first in the event of an emergency.

Oddly, the same set of circumstances is often applied to women with elderly parents. The need to ferry to doctors appointments, the need to sort care packages etc. That is often more draining on both the person and the mployer in terms of time. yet no-one questions their commitment.

But jumping was it as a result of having children or as a result of taking a career break with children?