Have You Had a 2-Body Problem? [Poll]

We're asking for your help again this year to find out more about the challenge that couples face when they both seek good jobs in the same city

By Rebecca Harrington

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When a physicist wants to determine the motion of two stars orbiting one another, it's called a two-body problem. This same term also refers in some egghead circles to two people in a relationship who are both trying to find satisfying jobs in the same location. Referring to high-achieving partners simply as "bodies" is a little crude, we admit. Maybe it should be called the "two-star problem."

Whatever you call it, the problem is especially prevalent in academia, where a disproportionate number of couples are both scholars, with many of them even working in the same field. A 2008 study from Stanford University found that almost three quarters of academics had employed partners, 36 percent of whom were also an academic.

We're interested in updating these numbers and finding out more about the two-body problem. So last year, in the spirit of Valentine's Day, we published a survey enlisting our readers to help us answer some questions. (Because what is more romantic than discussing difficult decisions that could possibly ruin your relationship?)

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

A few highlights from last year's results:

3,074 people responded
74 percent worked in academia or the sciences
90 percent had experienced or expected to experience the two-body problem
47 percent of females said they would move for their partner's job versus 56 percent of males
33 percent of females had actually moved for their partner's job versus 20 percent of males

This year we're asking you to help us again. Below is a slightly updated version of the survey. Filling out the final question helps give us insight into issues you're facing that our multiple choice survey questions can't address. We may quote from these responses in our follow-up post discussing the results, so please include your name and location if you don't mind sharing those.

We appreciated your responses and comments last year; they helped make this year's survey better! The survey will be open until Saturday, February 28. Thanks for your help!

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American