Nature published "A PhD State of Mind" in 2018, with this blurb:
Recent surveys have linked academia and PhD studies to a risk of experiencing mental health issues. Despite the lack of extensive data, the negative impact of the stresses of lab life should not be underestimated, and PhD students and research trainees should be supported.
Repeating a comment I made in the above discussion, here are a couple of relevant quotes from Freeman Dyson (who does not have a PhD):
“Well, I think it actually is very destructive. I'm now retired, but when I was a professor here [Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton], my real job was to be a psychiatric nurse. There were all these young people who came to the institute, and my job was to be there so they could cry on my shoulder and tell me what a hard time they were having. And it was a very tough situation for these young people. They come here. They have one or two years and they're supposed to do something brilliant. They're under terrible pressure — not from us, but from them.
So, actually, I've had three of them who I would say were just casualties who I'm responsible for. One of them killed himself, and two of them ended up in mental institutions. And I should've been able to take care of them, but I didn't. I blame the Ph.D. system for these tragedies. And it really does destroy people. If they weren't under that kind of pressure, they could all have been happy people doing useful stuff. Anyhow, so that's my diatribe. But I really have seen that happen."
Also, The New York Times Magazine published "Lethal Chemistry at Harvard" in their November 29, 1998 issue, detailing the suicide of chemistry grad student Jason Altom:
I have heard something similar about a grammar school in Germany. Every 2nd year a student killed himself and also drug abuse and other things like that are more commonplace there compared to other types of schools in the city.
It seems that many similar institutions cannot cope with the development of young people and then the pressure rises until some of them see no other choice but to end this or try to escape.
Also mental health problems seem to increase in young people.
Somehow I think they should get more attention from really skilled people with social skills and also the education system(s) need to change to allow them to grow up before putting too much pressure on them.
I think you make a very good point in your last statement. The reason for encouraging young people to succeed within institutional frameworks can be easily explained as a direct outcome of the needs of modern states to churn out skilled people for “The betterment of the Nation”. Schools were originally meant to train the population in skills that would greatly assist them as soldiers or workers in a factory. Life expectancies were different then and so were social conventions around eg marriage.
Today, most nations are at peace and life expectancy is generally large and fertility rates and marriage are declining. This means that there isn’t the urgent need as it was then to train early. Institutions should be changed with these new circumstances in mind.
I forget the name of the other famous physicist (not Dyson) who said it, but the quote was: "I've seen more [persons] destroyed by Physics than by drugs".
I don't regret my Ph.D., but I still remember the monotone voice in which I defended my dissertation. Listen to advice here. Powerlessness is quite something to experience when one is (has been) locked in for years.
I am currently a master's student and about to start PhD in one of the top AI labs. I already feel mentally exhausted with all the indirect pressure tactics my supervisor uses like not responding to emails, withholding stipend for several months and so on. It's a disaster and I never imagined myself in this situation. I hope things change soon.
This isn't going to change. You should do everything in your power to get a better supervisor, particularly for your dissertation research. You're early enough in the process that starting a new project, or modifying your current project, is completely worth it to get a better supervisor who actually supports you and will help you graduate. Talk to other grad students to see what they think of their advisors.
Also you should try to find other faculty (and possibly postdocs) to advise you who aren't your supervisor if at all possible, and try to form an informal group of grad students to meet periodically to discuss research and grad life in general.
And remember it is a marathon not a race, so overworking is usually unproductive unless you are up against a strict paper deadline (even then it's unproductive but may be worth it in the short run.)
My first half was with a supervisor similar to what OP described. Fortunately I was able to transfer halfway through to a much better supervisor. I have seen both sides, having a good supervisor makes a massive difference.
Even so, now that I am finished, the emotional drain of the first two years and lack of time to properly recover has left me completely BURNT OUT.
OP, please take the advice of musicale, it is EXACTLY RIGHT.
I am a little dissapointed to find many comments here putting the responsibility on the (prospective) PhD student. I'm sure this is the case sometimes. In my case I was absolutely happy doing independent research at all times in my life apart from with this horrendous supervisor who, at all turns, made it difficult to do good science.
But in general direct or indirect retaliation is a risk and is why it is so important for you to do something ASAP.
I don't know all the details of your situation but based on what you said in OP it might be advisable to switch. The sooner you do the less time you might 'waste' in an unfruitful project and the less time and money the supervisor has invested in you, so they might be less likely to retaliate.
Further, it also might be considered 'professionally embarrassing' for the supervisor if you ask to switch during the PhD. At the stage you are now you could probably change in a way that saves you hassle and the supervisors face by diplomatically posing the change as a mere change in 'academic interests', i.e. slightly different project with a favourable supervisor.
Of course you should suss out the possible alternative supervisors first and try and meet them and their students to make sure they are actually favourable to your current prof.
These are just the first points that come to mind, happy to answer other questions if you would like (see my gmail in profile).
The difficulty is knowing who's a good supervisor. As a msc student, you may only know of their academic reputation, which has nothing to do with quality or attitude to supervision. In retrospect I was lucky, and my supervisors bio picture has him hanging in a hammock, which, if I had known, could have been exactly the indicator I should have looked for.
Either way, try if you can, and don't hesitate to stop with the current supervisor if it's just not working for you. No reason to continue on an unhappy path. It's always worth choosing your own sanity.
This sound advice. I cannot emphasize enough how important is the supervisor in the PhD experience, IMO, the most relevant factor. So if this is the treatment you get even before starting... I would also say, yes, look for another place.
Very helpful advice. I am trying to extend my masters by another 8 months and work with other professors in the department to make the switch. Fingers crossed :)
It helps if you can let go of the top places. I've done a PhD at a subtop institute, less well known, and I made a rule of not working in the weekend/evening (unless it was my own initiative, which was rarely), and I had a blast. I'm doing a postdoc now at another subtop place, which will be the end of my academic career because getting tenure of course still requires more than average, which I'm happy to admit I am.
Joing a top institute is starting training with olympians: most of us can't keep up, but that's fine. Join a local fitness club instead, and suddenly you can. You won't win medals, but you'll still learn a shit-ton, do good research and have fun.
Yes, so many people are obsessed with the top places, only applying to the most brand new institutions, and then wonder why they're not treated with gloves. If you have incredibly high expectations of the institution, the institution puts tremendous pressure on its faculty, and so the faculty will need to produce in a big way. Hence, you will either need to produce in a big way or they won't have time for you.
So many people think they're too good to apply for a school like Ohio State or Boston University, but then themselves are not constantly performing at the highest world caliber.
The others are right, it is probably not going to change.
From that short sentence it seems that your supervisor is doing a lot of things at once and you are low in the priority list. I don't think it's personal (unless you have clear evidence for the contrary).
If you're not ok with that (some people prefer being able to work in peace) and you cannot change it (some profs are like cats, show them something interesting and you'll have more of their attention than you ever wanted) see if there is someone else around to help. Are there any postdocs or other seniors who could fill that hole? Also talk to the other PhD students and see what their impression of the supervisor is.
It is very important that the supervisor/group and you are at least a decent fit. Think about what kind of working conditions and supervision you need, (and what would be harmful), and then consider if the match is good enough. (For example, do you want to be left alone or do you need closer mentoring? What kind of mentoring? Do you want to work with peers?) If in doubt about something major, you could also try to talk to the supervisor directly.
The most important thing for your mental health is mostly not the research question but your research conditions. Please take care of yourself.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I definitely agree that it is not personal. I feel lucky for doing MS and not doing a PhD right off the bat which allowed me to find what works for me.
They will not. I have seen what a bad supervisor does to his students and it is not good. If you insist on the madness of a PhD, at least find a supervisor willing to treat you as a human being.
Don't forget to value yourself. The relationship between you and your advisor is deeply personal, especially for you.
It is important to periodically evaluate whether or not your situation is a good one. If it is not, it may be time to make a change.
The structures of academia can lead to outcomes where good-intentioned people to take actions (or often, inactions) that are, in an absolute sense, abusive. When academia is good, it can be great, but is essential to recognize when things are not okay and take steps to make them better. Communication is often a great first step.
A wise friend once passed on an aphorism that has been useful to me: "Hope is not a strategy."
You should really consider a different advisor. In my experience that is by far the #1 most important factor in how your experience will be. You will be putting yourself in their hands much more than you already have. It's entirely possible to have an enjoyable experience with someone who supports a healthy work life balance. Of course when crunch time hits there will be very long crazy days, but when that isnt happening a good advisor will give you space, let you work when and where you want, and not engage in toxic behavior.
I don't claim this to be deliberate and I am sure my supervisor is good human being and it is nothing personal. Simultaneously I also think it is not difficult to see what effect this causes deliberate or not.
The top AI labs don't widthold graduate student funding. Almost nobody does this, as funding is often required before taking students and reviewed on a semester basis (typically planning forms) , and the checks are obviously issued by the university.
I started to work instead of doing a PhD and I think it was a good decision. The sad part is having less time and progressing more slowly with research (outside of one's job, whatever it may be) but maybe it's better than not having a job and also progressing slowly doing a PhD full time.
As an aside, if you have a clear research interest already (which many PhD naturally take a long time to find) then I don't think it matters that much anymore whether you have the actual qualification. In Mathematics it could be easier to go the direct path to research than in Biology, though. Two papers can these days even be converted to a PhD with minimal additional work.
I'm glad you called out biology as a counterexample. In my grad school/postdoc experience, publishing a meaningful paper in the wet lab biosciences often requires tens of thousands of dollars in consumable materials, as well as $100k+ of lab hardware. Casual garage researchers have very little opportunity to contribute to the field in meaningful ways.
I would say math is the exception, rather than biology. In most fields - even ones that don't require physical experiments - research is aided quite a bit by infrastructure, interaction, and environment.
I 100% echo this. My biggest gripe about my biology degree was that there wasn’t much research I could do without either access to a lab or being Bruce Wayne. The single best thing that can happen to biology research would be to figure out a way to reduce these barriers tremendously, either via more access or by more affordable technology. So I’m excited about recent developments in synthetic biology.
Casual researchers have a huge opportunity right now to contribute in hugely beneficial ways. There are terabytes of public data out there to be analyzed and not enough people with the dry skills to comb through it. Computational biology needs manpower. Github makes it trivial for anyone to share their projects with the world.
The most important ingredient in research is time. Don't count out garage research.
There is no substitute for professionalism in research, no matter the venue. Hard work, best practices, collaboration, and expertise are all essential.
I am presently in a time of change in my own research career, and a garage laboratory underwritten by an industrial job is beginning to look quite tempting. There are a lot of advantages, but the onus is heavily on the researcher to choose research directions that are compatible with that environment.
Barbara McClintock did her most-famous work in a shed with a small adjoining cornfield. I'm happy to wager that there are major discoveries left in biology to be made with similar equipment. The key is being able to eat, sleep, support loved ones, be healthy, and be able to get some research done.
At the moment, I work at the University of Washington's CENPA but my departure from academia is likely. Whether I leave academia or not, the best way to follow my scientific work is through my publications:
Thanks — btw I’m interested in the garage laboratory you mentioned. The process of how you go about setting up and running an independent lab, etc. If you end up doing that, I’d like to follow that. Would that be on Google Scholar?
Mathematicians and computer scientists have it easy in some sense. You can always argue that math is more difficult and hence your reward is this freedom from expensive lab work, but I think that argument is disingenuous when you look at the human (and humanitarian) component. (And biology is not simple in anyway.)
As much as I like Hardy's statements about pure math, without applied math and biology we are just "clever" statues exhibiting technique and skill, but not directly helping to better the human conditions for living.
Really true. We need more examples of people completing PhDs in 1-2 years because they've already done the research and written most of the thesis. It's totally possible.
That misses the learning process in a PhD program. A PhD is not just the thesis work, it is also the education and mentorship that is generally necessary to become an expert in both a broad field and a specialty.
Suppose somebody does a brilliant Master's thesis and afterwards quickly writes two more good papers. He/She could get a PhD immediately at that point as far as research is concerned, but would benefit from waiting a bit longer and also getting mentorship etc. .
A person who worked and published for 10 years for all purposes already was doing PhD work for 10 years and thus can more or less staple some works together to get PhD whenever they want to.
People can go their whole lifetime without making novel contributions to a field. If an arbitrary time limit is required to have a PhD, I feel like it probably discounts the implications of what kind of individual one needs to be to make novel contributions at a young age in less time.
Part of the reason it typically takes 5-6 years to complete a PhD (in computer science at least) is because it takes a long time to learn the methods, the skills, and the large body of past work, as well as just becoming a member of the research community (via attending workshops and conferences, publishing paper, and reviewing).
It's possible to complete a PhD in 2-3 years, but this also typically leaves no room for exploration or any kinds of errors. At CMU, the only examples I know of were people who were on leave from the military and had a hard stop after 3 years to return.
Also CMU alum. Why anyone would WANT to rush a PhD, I don't know. I had to finish faster than my peers because I started a business half way through -- and I was either going to complete in 6 months or never. So I finished up in a hurry. I am a tenure track professor & CEO -- which works so long as you don't care about anything at all. But that's separate.
My point is, and I'm four beers in, is that my head of data science is so good, he has been mentored by me for years (fwiw), and he has published a lot -- I feel he is the perfect candidate for completing a PhD asap. I think he needs two years for acculturation.
In that paradigm, smart folk in industry could publish papers and then take 2 years to get a doctorate --- and I think the world would be better for it.
I study on my own and present it on my website, no paywall or subscription. I do what I want, rather than what a professor tells me.
I've been featured on some top websites.
My point is, you don't need academia necessarily. And after meeting PhD grads, I'm not sure I believe in the positive association with intelligence and accomplishments.
I worked in an animal lab on masters research that required strict 12/12 light cycles. 12 hours bright white, 12 hours red light (circadian rhythms impacted the study design). No windows and no support from post doc or supervisors (both had different serious health problems). I'm quite an upbeat person so it was fine short term, it did put me off academia and purusing a PhD though. Good decision in retrospect and after staying in contact with my peers who have not learned much new and have in my opinion over-specialised.
I was once inside the research bubble but fell out when I quit from burn out. I have no regrets and have had wonderful and colourful jobs in the three years since. But I still dabble in research and have friends doing PhDs and post-docs. Honestly, what I see is that every single person in research is unhappy in some way. The degree varies, but they all struggle at least a little more because of their jobs.
A good counter yes. I can only vouch for my own health improvements, but a lot of what makes a PhD bad for mental health is just that it is effectively a miserable and badly paid job.
The disastrous impact of PhD's on their authors health is already well known. The sad reality of the scientific publication, funding and politics game rat race is well known. Whether a PhD is a good idea, financially or economically, is debated.
Why do people who are not 100% sure they want to do a PhD and know what it means continue to start one? (And how do we stop them? -That's the real question.)
You can be absolutely certain you want to do a PhD and still end up with an abusive advisor. Certainty doesn't need to have anything to do with the state of your mental health with your PhD. What we should be stopping is these tenured advisors who literally get away with screaming at their students.
A PhD should be what you make of it. If you want to work for 3 hours a day and have it take 8+ years, then so be it. Sometimes you do need to do that if you have dependents, for instance. You can always secure your own funding and/or TA. But it shouldn't be an excuse for a boss to squeeze unlimited hours out of you for less than the price of an hourly technician.
That one conversation I had in the engineering building parking lot, with that one guy that I don't even remember who he was... he persuaded me that going into grad school in physics, chasing the unified field theory, wasn't a useful use of my life. Seeing all this makes me very grateful for that conversation. Thank you, whoever you were.
Sometimes I think PhD's should be awarded to Groups or atleast Pairs of researchers.
Let the group find each other and defend a thesis. If the group breaks apart they loose their certification of expertise. And can reform and reprove it. Those who want to do things alone can, ofcourse do things the old way.
This would reduce the the unrealistic expectations on some folk who work better in groups, while allowing them to hone whatever skills they bring to the table.
Groups basically compensate for each others limitations and in the modern highly competitive world, with it's time/resource constraints and complex problems certifying individual expertise is looking over rated.
PhDs are fundamentally not about a team effort. They are about recognising a single persons ability to produce and communicate novel research in a highly specific area. Unrealistic expectations are as much a part of this process as they are anything else.
My advisor pseudo follows this. He does his best to bring in pairs of students that will be on _similar_ topics. (of course they are both responsible for their independent research and thesis). That way they can struggle together and find their way, it helps lesson the burden he has as idea generation now is covered and "getting stuck" is less worrisome as you are stuck with someone. As the students grow, they separate into their own thesis but the great part is they tend to still collaborate with their peer, so even by thesis end, both know each other's thesis pretty well.
It will not change as long as the laws of supply and demand continue to hold. Science funding has been continuously rising at an incredible pace for the last century, causing the field to grow by nearly two orders of magnitude. But we are always strapped for cash because we can always instantly grow to carrying capacity for the funding, and that’s because a single professor can have upwards of 25 students throughout their career, in some fields 100.
If we weren’t at carrying capacity, nobody would have to put up with bad advisors and low pay. But we will always be at carrying capacity. Funding could grow by 10x tomorrow and we would be right back in the same position in 20 years.
It's good we have an educate workforce ready to absorb increases in research funding imo. However, dealing with abusive advisors and low pay isn't going to change with research funding. That's the individual school's prerogative to set that stipend. Most of them aren't even close to the NSF.
Schools definitely have the funding to bump stipends to 3x(market rate apartment), but they don't. There's always money in the banana stand (endowment/football).
When the incentives change. Which means probably not in the next few decades.
Or perhaps if there is enough bad publicity and/or lawsuits by parents/families of students who died from suicide, and/or if enough grad students unionize and take action.
Universities hate bad publicity. It's one of the few forms of leverage against them.
Recent surveys have linked academia and PhD studies to a risk of experiencing mental health issues. Despite the lack of extensive data, the negative impact of the stresses of lab life should not be underestimated, and PhD students and research trainees should be supported.
It was discussed here at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19322834.
Repeating a comment I made in the above discussion, here are a couple of relevant quotes from Freeman Dyson (who does not have a PhD):
“Well, I think it actually is very destructive. I'm now retired, but when I was a professor here [Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton], my real job was to be a psychiatric nurse. There were all these young people who came to the institute, and my job was to be there so they could cry on my shoulder and tell me what a hard time they were having. And it was a very tough situation for these young people. They come here. They have one or two years and they're supposed to do something brilliant. They're under terrible pressure — not from us, but from them.
So, actually, I've had three of them who I would say were just casualties who I'm responsible for. One of them killed himself, and two of them ended up in mental institutions. And I should've been able to take care of them, but I didn't. I blame the Ph.D. system for these tragedies. And it really does destroy people. If they weren't under that kind of pressure, they could all have been happy people doing useful stuff. Anyhow, so that's my diatribe. But I really have seen that happen."