Advice is usually meant to be helpful. Which only adds to the temptation to follow it. Especially if the questions you seek answers for are not trivial. Especially if you ascribe some degree of authority or expertise to the person giving you advice. But it is dangerous to overlook one simple fact. On the subject of your life, there can ever exist but one expert. The only person in the world whose interests perfectly match your own. And that person is you.
Let's have a look at three examples of career and financial advice for young scientists. One article from Nature (in this post), another from Science, and a presentation from a recognized author and lecturer on the subject of career development for young scientists and engineers (in later posts).
1. What makes a good PhD student?
Here is an article by Dr. Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Nature 441, 252 (May 10, 2006).
Good PhD students, bad PhD students... Good for whom, bad for what? Remember, "good" and "bad" are relative terms. And yet the majority of advice is, essentially, directed at PhD students themselves (the article is subtitled Some tips for PhD students). Georgia is saying that PhD students should be "good", focus on their research, work hard, take very little time off and so on. But why, for whose benefit?
What the author identifies as the main problem is the "frustration and disappointment" experienced by PhD students and their advisors, and students' failure to "fulfill their aspirations to be independent scientists". She thinks it arises from the lack of initial understanding of "what doing a doctorate should entail". Her proposed solution is for the PhD-granting institutions to clearly explain to all perspective PhD students what they should be doing in graduate school. So, how about it?
First off, the advice on PhD recruitment tactics is bad. Fair warnings are nice, but academic institutions aren't stupid. "Come on up, work your ass off for 5-6 years" is not a selling point likely to raise PhD application rates. Consequently, it is not something that is going to be overly emphasized to perspective students. Neither will the quote...
Those who stick with a career in science do so because, despite the relatively poor pay, long hours and lack of security, it is all we want to do.
...ever find its way into any PhD program information booklets out there.
But Georgia is right, universities are under pressure. Except this pressure is not quite to "graduate as many PhD students as possible". Rather, it is to recruit as many, as smart, as skilled and as talented students as possible, and get them to do as much as possible before they leave. Growth, funding and prestige of an institution depend on the quality and quantity of new science it produces. PhD students and postdocs are the "worker ants" that push the research forward.
What makes a PhD student "good" from the point of an academic institution? Precisely what Prof. Chenevix-Trench is trying to pass off as friendly advice for science students worldwide. She probably means well, and her sentiment should be appreciated, but... Ever heard of a saying "the only good Indian is a dead Indian"? Well, now you also have "the only good student is a hard-working student".
Someone completely focused on research and contributing to science, with no outside interests or family. Someone who takes breaks only to avoid burning out and "goes home with a full briefcase to work on at the end of the day". This kind of dedication really does make for a "good" PhD student. Good indeed — for the PI, the department, the institution. Good for the student's own sake? No, not necessarily.
CONTINUE READING: PART II
OR
comments for this post
I've been a student of science for over 10 years. Most of that time I worked in academic research labs. The last and the longest time – in the laboratory of Dr. 
I agree that those tips are terrible. I immediately felt disgusted after I read the "Work hard — long days all week and part of most weekends. If research is your passion this should be easy, and if it isn't, you are probably in the wrong field. Note who goes home with a full briefcase to work on at the end of the day. This is a cause of success, not a consequence."
Okay, I agree that I don't work as hard in research as I do in some other dead-end jobs I did in my life, but those years when I stayed in the lab running reactions until after midnight, and would often use the sleeping bag that was under my desk, leave me with nothing but contempt for that kind of lifestyle. I have other interests besides research and these days I can't really stand to spend my free time with people whose only passion is that. I don't have the patience for them and their narrow personalities and when I do discuss my research that I am excited about with others, it's often with people who are more like me.
Even though I don't have a family, I have too much of other, very important and non-research related stuff, to do on the weekends and evenings currently. Maybe if my interests change once again I'll spend more time in the lab.
Yeah, so the deal is, basically:
1. you're not supposed to have any life outside of the lab;
2. if it's hard for you or you don't like it, it's your own fault.
Even though I first read this piece when I was already out of grad school, I always had an understanding of this. It can really get instilled in you pretty quickly. I was a "good" student in college (double honors degree, top of my class in two departments, awards, medals, scholarships). So I certainly did not plan on being "bad" as graduate student. I listened to advice and tried my best. To the extent that I would feel bad or even guilty whenever I was not in the lab working. Because no matter how much and how hard you work, you can always work more and harder. There is no limit. Live in the lab, sleep in the lab, don't forget to bring your toothbrush.
I've always had a problem with this. And for a long time I did think that it was essentially my fault, that the research field was wrong, that I could do a better job motivating myself etc. I did change fields, it helped, but did not solve my problem and it never became "easy" either.
I know the kind of people you are talking about, could never stand being around them myself when off-duty. Gathering for a party, finding nothing better to talk about than papers, reactions and molecules all night. "Oh wow, really, five consecutive stereogenic centers with 94% selectivity in two steps?" *headdesk*
It's like a special little world you can completely immerse yourself in. But Academia is very self-serving in a sense that it does not go out of its way to try and prepare anyone for anything but more Academia. The problem is, most people eventually leave, whether they want it or not. When those people enter the bigger world out there, they may find that they should have spent more time thinking about what they wanted to do. That they should have explored their other passions and interests as well, and maybe picked up some other skills — instead of being "good", doing like they are told and focusing on one thing only.
You heal me. God, you heal me.
John Gatto might argue that grad school is the deliberate extended infantilization of students used to encourage docility towards the task masters who benefit from their drudgery.
I would say that is the primary difference between professional school and graduate school is this. By focusing on these ridiculous and unattainable virtues and ideals (sleeping in the lab and having eureka moment of insight etc.), research can create a work force that is willing to give up (in a relative sense) their own productivity and independent thinking in exchange for the approving glance of their master. Meanwhile, professionals are quickly introduced to competition in the real world and are required to cast aside many of these naive ways of thinking in order to maximize their happiness and wealth (e.g. wake up early, go to work, eliminate competition, go home and enjoy yourself).
Brilliant. May I shake your hand?
I am sorry that you feel so negative about a life in science, but I'd just like to address Andrei's comment that 'you’re not supposed to have any life outside of the lab'. I have been married for 27 years, have two daughters (who appear happy and well adjusted), three dogs, two gardens (including a small orchard), and lots of friends. We have people over for dinner or go out 2-3 times a week, go to concerts or plays 2-3 times a month, and take 6 weeks holiday every Christmas. The same could be said for nearly all of my colleagues - we have families, friends, hobbies and holidays i.e. what is usually called 'a life outside the lab'.
Hello Dr. Chenevix-Trench, nice of you to stop by and comment!
It's interesting that you would choose to defend a (tenured) professor's lifestyle, despite the fact that I, obviously, was talking about PhD students. More specifically, your article on what makes a PhD student "good". I brought it up because I think you painted a rather good picture of what is expected and often demanded from science PhD students in reputable graduate schools across the USA and Canada. I can't really claim it's all the same around the globe. I know that PhD students in Europe have significantly more relaxed schedules. And I know very little about PhD programs in Australia.
I may be exaggerating a bit, when I say "no life outside the lab". But really, how much time (or energy) is left after working hard "long days all week and part of most weekends" and taking "a full briefcase to work on at the end of the day"? A person also has to shop for food, etc. Can taking breaks "so you don't burn out" be called a life? Just how much room is there left for relationships, or family — or can a "good" PhD student even have one? And now multiply that by 6-7 years, all of them out of a person's twenties. Perhaps five, like in organic chemistry, but those guys literally live and sleep in the labs. And then add 2-4 years of postdoc on top of that, which is more of the same. Did I mention that the pay is kind of miserable, and in a lot of cities PhD students can't afford to rent even the tiniest of apartments by themselves? I could go on.
I know it's a choice. And 'not supposed to' does not necessarily mean 'cannot'. In fact, being a "not so good" PhD student is an option I advocate. But seriously, if you don't see any problems with this picture, and truly think we're all just "feeling negatively" here... I guess I'll continue to be amazed.
I agree. Georgia is talking about a much different situation that most science students wont obtain. In my experience in grad school I've seen marriages deteriorate and students get treated like garbage. This might be more of an American thing, I don't know, but it's what a lot of us are seeing. Those who enjoy this kind of life definitely have some type of Stockholm Syndrome that I can't comprehend. With life sciences averaging almost 7 years and people taking on postdocs, this is likely to continue, since there is a ready stream of suckers to draw from year after year.
The training is long and hard, not because it's necessary, but because there really are no jobs to jump to if the conditions become unbearable. People without options can simply be worked to the bone. A few grad students will make it to the coveted positions Georgia speaks of, where the heavy lifting and unpredictable lab experiments can be handed off to graduate serfs. But most, even upon finding a job in industry, will live some pretty difficult lives. American science is incredibly tumultuous, constantly being outsourced and the pay stinks for the amount of work and risk being taken on. If I had known the amount of work and hours I would have to put in just to make my $22K, I would have just went to school to be a real doctor. The pay is better, I would be respected and I wouldn't have to worry about "IF" I could find a job, I would be more worried about "WHERE" I'd like to work.
Dear Andrei
I am not tenured - there is no tenure in Australia (which is good; tenure is daft) so I have to reapply for my salary every 5 years. Sleeping in the lab is also daft, and there are some ridiculous expectations in the US in particular. But 50-60 hours a week actually does, and should, leave plenty of time for other things; and clearly it is all about quality and quantity - hanging around the lab to talk and read the paper just to be seen to be at work is pointless, and I saw a lot of that in the US. And you can think in the car, or shower, or garden.....
I too was once a PhD student (in the US) and I am surrounded by them so I have a reasonable idea of what it takes to get where most of them say they want to go (i.e. to run a lab). One of the reasons we left to come here is that I think the work ethic in the US is wrong - lots of pretence of working (and often lots of real work) and no holidays.
My daughter is now about to embark on a PhD so I can't have put her off too badly - when the kids lived at home we always got home by 5.30, ate dinner together, and then did a bit of work after they had gone to bed, and when I worked on Sundays I tried to do it from home so I was at least around.
Georgia
I like the no tenure idea. It would prevent tyrants from continuous employment. When there is a 90% attrition rate in a lab what's the purpose of keeping these people employed?
As far as the amount of work that gets done in the U.S., that may just be a symptom of the tenure problem and many grad students not having good prospects. That tends to slow work down.
I hadn't thought about that but it is a good point. If I had 90% attrition (or even 50%) 'my' productivity would plummet and my own salary would not get renewed so hopefully it would force me to wake up.
Yeah, this is a real problem that some students run into. They get suckered into a lab with a tyranical advisor who's only had two people graduate in the past ten years. I'm right next to one of these labs. The tenure thing really restricts change. The school has to be able to change so the students enter a program that can give them a chance at making a living within science. Instead we play to the beat of tenured academics who only live by the rules of soft money.
Way to go! Keep the awesome rants going!
I agree, tenure is ridiculous. And so is the work ethic in the United States, very true. I've seen more real work, than pretense, I suppose. But, regardless, it does not make any sense to live your life like that.
50-60 hours could be OK, but not without proper compensation. The way the PhD/postdoc system is set up now, it is a long winner-take-all race for a limited number of desirable jobs, like faculty positions. Tournament theory deals with this phenomenon in economics. People can be motivated by a mere possibility of promotions, nicer jobs or better pay in the future. They will compete with each other en masse for a small number of prizes, all sacrificing their time, comfort, opportunities and present income in the process. This is why students sleep in labs. They are simply giving it their all trying to outperform one another, knowing that rewards will be distributed based on relative, not absolute, performance.
Science PhD programs act like traps. Even before people begin to understand what they've gotten themselves into, they've already made sacrifices. It quickly becomes a choice of either staying in the game and sacrificing more for a shot at the prize, or admitting a loss and leaving empty-handed. The latter is very tough psychologically, even when it is by far the more rational decision. Casinos make a lot of money on this, and for PhD-granting research institutions it is a very inexpensive way to maintain a highly motivated, qualified and productive workforce. They know it, and they exploit it for their benefit and survival. It's an evolutionary stable strategy, if you will.
Wait a second. I definitely think there is something wrong with the tenure system, but tenure is not TOTALLY rediculous.
Without tenure, for example, this experiment would never have happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Tenure exists because profs know administration sucks and will screw them. Grad students know profs suck and will screw them too. The difference is grad students don't have an equivalent to tenure.
You must love those little buggers hanging around your lab, huh? So cute and cuddly, forfeiting all those life experiences for the sake of a study that will never get published - ahhh, such dolls...
>I know it's a choice.
It's not really a choice. I mean, I love science so damn much, I would probably chosen if given a proper choice over again, but it would have been really nice to know how shitty things were going to be before entering the enterprise. There is a lot of papering over the problems (economic, social, etc) in science, obviously the PIs are not going to advertise the problems, but what is worse is that the graduate students and postdocs are often complicit by not speaking up and telling potential grad students just how horrible things are in anything besides snarky comments, and "if you only knew" side glances which in retrospect I should have figured out.
And I'm a little bit mellow about it because I spent a ton of time in an undergraduate lab actually watching grad students go through the same motions, so I did have an idea of what was going to happen (what I didn't know was the way that my PI was actually going to be, or the shit that happens REALLY behind the scenes)
I know what you mean. It's kind of a nasty irony, considering that scientists learn to value things like knowledge, clarity, objectivity, openness, etc. For PhD students and postdocs, the benefits of speaking out are outweighed by the risks/fears of getting personally screwed for it. So the whole thing becomes airtight. It would be nice if the anonymity of the internet could help, but I'm not betting on it.
"the graduate students and postdocs are often complicit by not speaking up and telling potential grad students just how horrible things are "
That's because it's a Macro problem rather than a Micro problem. If I'm already in the shit, then I want as good a bunker buddy to join me in the foxhole as I can get. My incentive is not to discourage the guy, even if the rare person of exceptional ethics might defy the underlying incentives and blow the whistle.
Uh, I don't think that's the motivation to lie to prospectives at all, dude.
In winter 2008 I remember being at a recruitment event when I flat out told prospectives that it was a bad idea to go to grad school, but gave them the caveat that the economy was crashing and that it probably made no difference either way.
For the most part grad students gloss over the awfulness of grad school to prospectives for many, far more plausible reasons:
1) they're first or second year students so they haven't had the brunt of the crap hit them yet
2) they're socially awkward and so not doing what they're told and being a bold sumbitch isn't in their demeanor
3) they're part of the system and don't see the crap that is going on around them (seriously, participation in recruitment self-selects for people who are happy to propagandize the system)
4) they want the free food and are afraid that if they are rabble-rousers they will be disinvited (unlikely, but still more likely than your dumb explanation.
BTW that's no mistake, I am on record making two extraordinary predictions in early 2008 - one that the S&P 500 would go down to 800 and two that sarah palin would be the republican vice presidential pick.
Yeah, so your 1-4 in no way contradict my "dumb" explanation. I provided a rational explanation and you think that it is more likely people are irrational. Okay.
Okay.
Would you say that advisors do not warn students about the 'awfulness of grad school'? If so, why do they not?
Two reasons
1) if you've become a prof, probably everything went pretty well for you in grad school, you were a golden child, the prof groomed you for advancement, got papers in high-profile journals.
Alternatively,
2) you got your PhD during the era when it wasn't shitty.
"you think that it is more likely people are irrational."
What are you, some kind of objectivist?
About your essay in Nature, Dr. Chenevix-Trench: I think the academic research is not about working hard or not, it is about the ultimate payoff. Many Ph.D. students or postdocs, like me, would like to work hard and in fact, have worked hard most of the time. But the chance of getting a tenure track position is so slim (at least in the US) that makes people wonder how hard is working hard enough and whether it worths the effort at all. I know in some prestigious labs, people are typically required or peer-pressured to work at least 12 hours a day before going home with a briefcase of papers to read. But does that guarantee success? I think not. Still a lot of smart and hardworking people failed at the end, even if these people published decent papers. The road to tenure track has a very narrow bottleneck.
Nowadays a lot of professors stress on working hard. My boss is like that. But wait a minute, we are scientists, not sweatshop workers. Our productivity relies on creativity and novelty, no? Does working 12 hours a day without weekends and holidays enhance creativity? If you think so, can you provide scientific evidence? I think this topic worths a serious scientific study. I know, I know, people who work hard more likely publish more. But how many of those papers are really meaningful? A Harvard professor I know said he would not trust or care about 70% of the papers in his field.
Thank you, sir, for your insightful comments.
yeah, unless you're a synthetic organic chemist, how much of your 12-hour day is consumed actually doing work?
PS the full guide is on http://www.qimr.edu.au/research/labs/georgiat/index.html - perhaps the longer version seems more reasonable, or perhpas not?
Both versions are very reasonable, I would say. I think it's an excellent strategy guide for those PhD students who want to play the academic game in hopes of becoming a PI someday. Problem is, most (>95%) will surely not become professors, and many will not even want to.
@Anonymous:
I'm afraid the schools don't have any incentives to change right now. Things are the way they are for a reason. Tyrannical profs tend to perform rather well productivity-wise. And being productive in research is how schools compete for government funding, industry contracts and private donations. Their survival depends on it. That's the bottom line.
There should be quotation marks around "schools". At the graduate level, education is not the name of the game anymore. Research is. Just for kicks, take a look at the front page of the Scripps website. "Today's research, tomorrow's cures", "Research that Fuels Hope", "Your generosity will impact medical history. Donate now"...
As long as students are working hard while they are on the inside, who cares what happens to them after they leave? With or without a PhD, Master's, Shmaster's, whatever. And why should they care?
Same thing with PhD gluts. Why should grad schools care if they graduate too many people and the job market is flooded with PhD's? "Schools" have their own demands for labor to worry about and satisfy. Gotta man those labs, and it's nice to be able to do it for cheap. Sorry! From Academia's perspective, PhD gluts actually have a plus side, because more scientists will be forced stick around for another postdoc.
And tenure? It has its uses, considering that schools can absolve themselves of any responsibility for how students and postdocs are treated. They give the profs a free reign, and share in the profits without being seen as bad guys. If it weren't kind of sad, it would be hilarious. It's like "Oh really, your advisor is an abusive slave-driving sweatshop-running manipulative prick? We feel for you, and it's really too bad, but he's got tenure, and we can't touch him". I've had a pretty similar conversation with a dean of Scripps.
All in all, it's nothing personal. Just economics.
I love your website!!! :)
Thanks! :)
I just had a flashback to my supervisor complaining about my NMR spectra, and I explained that I couldn't get a good lock and Helium was low ...
Magnet quenched because the nitrogen filler was not filling ...
Brilliant. Again, I almost feel obliged to kiss you. Keep the rants going!
RIP Jason Altom. Your legacy will never be forgotten!!
Was there any Scripps suicides?
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=6A71D16C-915E-6926-704E5A9C15C3D6AF
yee gads.
I'll be the first person to say "hey wait, let's look at the background suicide rate before we start pointing fingers", but the fact that I could guess he was part of a synthesis group (Dale Boger) scares me.