About me, that is. On the one hand, I don't find myself that interesting of a conversation topic. I'm me, and I already know a lot about myself. On the other hand, I've realized I'm spending time talking about myself in the comments under this or that post, often repeating what I've said before. And although none of this is strictly relevant to the general topics I want to discuss here, it might help for me to explain where I'm coming from.
So ask away, wait for somebody else to ask first, or for me to say something regardless. Questions like, I don't know, "Just how badly do you hate Reza Ghadiri?" or "Are you a bus driver now?". Anything you like.
Only one catch: I'll answer anything I like. :)
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. 
Did Reza and yourself agree on political issues? What do you think of Chairman Mao who I greatly admire? In your mind, is Mao a mass-murderer or great proletarian revolutionary?
By the way, do you think there is something analogous to the Confucian concept of filial piety that is tacitly observed by members of the lab (postdocs and grad students)?
Didn't discuss any political issues that I can recall. Mao — both, apparently. Filial piety? I hope not. Or someone needs to slap them.
Another question... are you $t0n3r and are there other $t0n3rs at Scripps among the postdocs, grad students, and PIs?
I'm not, but there were. Also, stoner rats in Kim Janda's lab. They did coke too. The rats, I mean. Research.
Why did you wanted to pursue a career in science? Is it because you saw scientists (academic PIs) as some sort of elite, highly prestigious social class who did not excel economically (like the shidafu in Confucian culture) who get to pursue their interesting intellectual interests.
Do you like anime? I, of course, love Japanese Yu-Gi-Oh! and Bleach!
I liked learning and being able to understand more and more about how the world works, what life is made of etc.. And if I was going to do something for living, I wanted it to be interesting to me. Or I knew I'd hate it and be miserable, regardless of how much money I made.
As a kid, I did think scientists were cool, using the power of their minds to discover the unknown and do powerful things. But I never cared too much for prestige, especially as I grew older and observed all the ridiculous bullshit associated with it.
No, I don't think anime is my cup of tea. I can't say I looked into it that much though.
I highly doubt that one needs to be a scientist in order to learn more about how the world works. For instance, one could just read wikipedia articles (which are mostly accurate) to have a fairly broad knowledge of history with some depth; one does not have to be a professional historian reading original primary sources, conducting original research.
Science, I suppose is different, since one needs access to journals if one wants to have in depth knowledge on a given topic as abstracts do not suffice.
being a scientist, is much more than reading wikipedia articles. if you don't do research, you are not a scientist. period. unless you get it done in the lab, it's bullshit.
Aha, so that's why they call those ordinary rooms with nothing but a few tables, chairs and computers "labs". (As in a "bioinformatics lab" or a "chemical physics lab".) It's so the research wouldn't be all bullshit! Or wait, isn't it the other way around, and any place sufficiently equipped to do scientific research of any kind can be called a "lab", by definition?
It's the kind of things low pay can do to one's brain. Becoming all proud and elitist helps suppress self-esteem issues. As a general rule though, if something doesn't suck as a means of earning a living, there's no need to make it prestigious.
Well, I remember the atrociously bad rapper in GTA:SA (that was the only computer game I played in four years; I didn't complete it though) OG Loc was working at a Burgershot (an obvious play on Burger King) as a janitor on probation describing his job position as a "hygiene technician". I suppose that is an occupation that could use the false prestige. :)
Wow! What has education come to when wikipedia is taken as a reliable source of information?
Well, it is mostly accurate. One does not reading comprehension skills to catch inconsistences and mistruths. BTW, are most of the statements there sourced?
What is in store for the future when people are too closed-minded to accept new vehicles of information?
Ah! Wikipedia: Vehicle of information or misinformation? That is the question; now, isn't it? Wikipedia, with all its “information” should be considered nothing but a curiosity. To think of Wikipedia as a source “to have a fairly broad knowledge of history with some depth” is not only atrocious, it is utterly ridiculous. But most of all, it is sad. It is sad because it shows what higher education has become: mass production, no depth, it has no part in forming the individual's character anymore. It has come to a point were earning a degree means nothing, does nothing for the individual. The once enriched spirit of the scholar craving knowledge and truth is no more. The education provided that opened the scholars mind and allowed him/her to become a gentler person is long gone. What we have now is a vast array of individuals and I’d like to quote an old professor of mine “who have passed through university but who did not have university pass through them”. Unfortunately, higher education institutions do not leave a mark in a person’s character anymore, at least not the mark that was originally intended.
Anyway, regarding The People’s Favorite Source of Information, it is not without reason that many articles in this so-called “knowledge database” are challenged due to inaccuracies, or maybe they not inaccuracies? Who knows, right? Who cares about works based on primary sources, reliable works? Let’s just go ahead and take a bunch of opinions, put together in a form that resembles an encyclopedia, as the truth. Who knows, maybe the person writing those articles got his information from another reliable source of information, like the Snapple cap facts.
This is pretty cool. What do you think of television? And, like, railroads and supermarkets?
What a mature way to express your opinion. And you blame the system for your failure? How about a more humble approach? How about looking at oneself first? Are my failures really someone else’s fault? What part did I play in it? If it took you so many years to realize that you were going nowhere in the field, who is really to blame? It is always an easy way out to crucify others for one’s failures, isn’t it? Others might have some influence over it, but ultimately, only you are responsible for your success or failure. How easy it is to fall into the victim pattern, isn’t it? "It’s not my fault" or "I failed because of them". You know, that’s the difference between successful people and failures. Successful people do not dwell in the past, feeling sorry for themselves, poisoning themselves with negative thoughts about their past and how they were treated oh so badly(boo-hoo). They just look forward and use the past in their favor, to strengthen them and succeed. However, that takes a character strength that not everybody was endowed with. That’s the reason why only a minority attains real success.
Anyway, it is not my intention to fall into a discussion following the general rant-like tone of this blog. Thanks for your comment, by the way. It is actually enough to rest my case. It is obvious that in all those years of higher education, you did not get a chance to learn the common courtesy of treating other people’s opinion with respect. No wonder bitterness seeps into every word you write about your experience. You obviously feel you have wasted many years getting what you thought was a higher level of education. Coming to the realization that it was all in vain must have been hard. I feel really sorry…
See here for my reply.
It is obvious from your commentary that you are just a shill for authority figures and a slave to the status quo.
Hey you know what? When the Japanese Americans were interned during world war II? It was their fault. They should have realized that the protections afforded in the constitution, that's not how "the real world" works. They just fell into the "victim pattern". They were "responsible for their success or failure".
I'm not sure I can separate successes from sociopaths ...
I mean, sure not dwelling on the past is a great thing, but disregarding the wrongs you commit to others is bad for the soul as well.
As for the rest of us, those that don't know our history are doomed to repeat it.
Or are we all supposed to walk around like gold fish with a five minute memory, pretending we are the greatest shit on the planet. maybe that's really what happened to us all.
I find general nose thumbing towards wikipedia a little lame...
Sure, articles on topics where (vocal) parties have an interest in framing things one way or another, tend to be a little volatile...hate to tell you that your history textbooks aren't bias free either, and wikipedia makes it a lot easier to see where the contention is.
Wikipedia is incredible for a lot of math, computer science and physics...even chemistry; the articles often provide formal definitions along with more intuitive explanations. I usually prefer the articles to the textbooks for a lot of the definitions.
And hey if you want to learn about the Dragon Ball pantheon, you can do that too.
You write about this 'once enriched spirit' and the 'originally intended' mark. Have you heard the song Nostalgia For An Age That Never Existed?
Exactly.
Eg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collatz_conjecture
Try finding a mathematics text that describes that quite as concisely, accessibly, accurately, and up to date. You can't.
Look man, I think school has it's place, but MOST people have greater aspirations in life that to be know-it-all windbags. We like to use our hearts as well. Some of us, would like our legacy to be our families and friends and not be the most merited guy in the old windbag club. I'm all for school as a means to an end, or a means to pursue knowledge (or at least where to look it up.) As for most trivial things that don't make or break your world or humanity, wikipidia is GREAT! I often use to get back ground and a feel for a general area of knowledge that I have no clue about before I go into the deeper realms of the literature. I remember reading the wikipedia postings about liquid crystals BEFORE I looked at the articles of one my interviewers to get a working basis of the knowledge terminology. You know, it was accurate enough to get me up to speed. Do I expect it to be the source of all knowledge ... well no .. of course not, but trying to get general knowledge out of journal articles wastes everyone's time.
Wanna come play soccer on Monday?
P. S.
жжошь. =)
I do, but I don't think I'll be able to make it. ) P.S. Speak American! )
What do you do now, since you left grad school?
I'm fooling around with a few ideas, classified for now, but I might brag if and when I start making it semi-big.
online dating! I hope you're working on online dating. Although it's hard to compete with okcupid
Are you a trader, investor, or speculator in financial markets now? I am just guessing what you are doing now because someone suggested poker as it involves betting.
Could be. It's interesting enough.
Andrei, I always wondered what the heck happened to you! I am from your past, the good old days of Toon town. Your lab experience started with MIlan and I as your lab mates. Sorry for that. I registered my email when I posted this comment so go ahead and email me to catch up (a little more than the horrors of grad school).
CP
Awesome. Will do!
@ Anonymous fe63 ↑
And just like that, the conversation turns back to me again! Lol.
How can treat you with respect? You're both stupid and aggressive. Either is fine in my book, but not both at the same time. Besides, I can't take your romantic-aristocratic hardon-for-ye-olden-days bullshit seriously anyway. So, I ask again, are you absolutely positively sure you're not some wig-wearing asshole dragged out from the 18th century somehow? )
You say it like "not failing" (whatever that means -- getting a PhD, becoming a prof, finding a job in the industry?) is the only good, or the best, thing in the world. Why should I be bitter? I'm not you, and I don't suffer from all the pretentious crap you appear to be afflicted with (you should do something about that, btw, it'll make you happier, trust me). I like science, so I hung out in Academia for a (long?) while, then I felt like I wanted to do something else, so I did. I didn't want to be a prof, get a PhD or a job in the industry. But no, I never thought my science years were a waste either. Because, for one, they weren't. So that, once again, covers that, hopefully.
As for "rant-like" qualities of my writing, I personally prefer 'edgy', since rants, to me, are incoherent and/or nonsensical/humorous tirades, and I actually try to present carefully thought out logical arguments. Illustrated with my own experiences, yes. If you find the latter utterly horrible or overly dramatized... I don't know, lighten up or something.
P.S. You kinda sound like that fucker from the chemistry-blog who wouldn't believe I wasn't bitter even after I said so. Are you? If not, you guys should hook up and be friends. ))
First question:
Why would you quit grad school if you were successful?
Second:
Why would you make a website about your boss and the terrible experience that is grad school, if you were successful?
Third:
Did you really "stick" around grad school because you were successful and thought it might just be good to "stick it out", or were you just not successful? at all.
Fourth:
If you weren't successful, then did you just make this site to blame others for your misfortunes, blame the graduate school institution you resided at for failing to give you success, instead of looking upon yourself for how you have may caused your own misfortune?
If you think about what "successful" means, you'll start getting somewhere. From your questions, it seems like you are putting a sign of equality between grad school and life. And, of course, you shouldn't. One is but a small part of the other, and not even a strictly necessary one... Not to compare myself to Bill Gates, but why did he quit Harvard if he was successful there? Or was he? And who cares?
I'm growing tired of all you admit-it-you-are-bitter-and-miserable types, but it does look to me like you're honestly not getting it. At the same time, I don't think I'm going to be able to help any of you. I'm pretty sure I've said enough so that a reasonable person would at least begin to understand. I've already said why I started this web site, why I went to grad school, why I quit grad school, and what I feel about this and that. You've been around from the start, so I would think that you'd read some of it. Perhaps, you just don't believe me. Well, that's not really my problem, is it now?
You won't be able to understand much if it's an overly emotional issue for you. Which it can be if you are/were a grad student yourself.
I started this website because I'm human, and humans are social animals. To say what I wanted to say, to be heard, to listen, to discuss, to think, to help people, to piss people off. Whatever. Do you know of any other website quite like this? I didn't. So I started one. It's not about grad school being a "terrible experience" (it wasn't all that terrible for me, how about you?). It's about shedding light where there isn't enough. About trying to think outside the box of an age-old system.
But, you know, the whole "look at me, I quit grad school and spilled the beans on my PhD advisor" thing works as a publicity stunt / link bait as well. I didn't have to do any advertising, just google "Reza Ghadiri" – a few visitors guaranteed every day. I don't know how pissed Reza is about this, but I'm guessing he's fine. In any case, it's my right to talk about my life, I own the domain name, and so on. My only real beef with Dr. Ghadiri is that he couldn't help but insult my intelligence. I did feel like I owed him for that, this website makes us even and clears that misunderstanding, I'm sure. But he is not a horrible person, and neither do I blame or hate him, Jah forbid, I would have still joined his lab if I started all over again.
I originally wanted to build towards and get into more challenging subjects like the future of scientific communication, open science, application of some basic ideas from economics to the organizational aspects of modern scientific endeavor. And I might yet, I'm not sure. It's been six months, and we still can't get past the puzzle of why I quit grad school. :/
Andrei, feel free to post (please anonymously, for now) some of the organizational ideas that I communicated to you in person about how to improve the structure of graduate school.
I went to a high school (the one of the first public "charter school"s, before "charter school" existed as a term) - and one of my teachers really highlighted a distinction between "success" and "excellence" - "success" is something that is fleeting and highly conditional on circumstance. "excellence" is an internal condition that we should strive for. Excellence does not guarantee success, nor does success always come from excellence. But you have agency over it, and it can potentiate success and even in the absence of success it creates personal fulfillment.
Okay that might sound like a bunch of hokey BS. But here's the point - graduate school currently is so competitive and a selective mechanism (versus a nurturing mechanism) that it favors "success" over "excellence". And it's understandable to not want to be a part of that.
As a counterpoint to my comment, I'd like to present something about what the real world rewards (and it's not excellence).
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/12/the-fable-of-market-meritocrac
I don't "hate" my advisers. With a few exceptions, I got really lucky. What kills me about scientists ... is that they are painfully unempathic to the human condition, and come across as sociopaths. So many profs really think that the rest of the world, if they tried hard enough, can be satisfied and full filled as total asbergers cases. I guess the thing that insulted me the most about science. Is that I do "work hard" I get off on "working hard" but I'm not egotistical about it, and I get tired, and I would like something in return, like every once in a while. I like payments in sex, money, and friendship, you can keep the prestige ... and it's not really negotiable for sex and friendship ... maybe money every once in a while. I just think the fact that I was so "hard working" and "dedicated" yet cared little to nothing about meritocracy and ass kissing is why I'm having a REAL hard time right now ... oh well.
Some stupid questions:
1. What would you rather have? 1) pitch a no-hitter and being a starting pitcher on a World Series championship team or 2) a PhD in organic chemistry from Duke?
2. What do you think of the rapture?
1. First if I didn't have to train/study/work for it, second if I had to. In the end, I'd still rather be a nerd, than a jock. Although, if you changed the sport from baseball to soccer, I wouldn't be 100% sure about that. ))
2. Christian or Buddhist kind? Either way, not much.
1. The correct answer should be "I rather be Derek Lowe" :-p -- BTW Mike Mussina is a very good pitcher and also a nerd according to his wikipedia article. But unlike Lowe, he hasn't been on a World Series championship team nor pitched a no-hitter, but he did come close to pitching a perfect game that was spoiled by the 27th batter (Carl Everett; for some fun, look at Everett's wikipedia article about his personal views, it is so funny.)
2. Christian rapture.
Do you play poker now? I know an Asian guy who lives in Macau who claimed he solved PLO cap and made a million playing poker and now sells his services for coaching poker at StoxPoker.com
I would really like to know how long it will take before your website will appear as a first hit on Google when you type in "Reza Ghadiri". But then, that is not a question about you... Feel free to answer anyway.
why don't we start a futures betting thread here.
Yes, let's do that...
I want to short US Treasuries now at 293 bps although I haven't even looked at the equity, currency, commodity, and other bond markets yet, nor have I looked at market sentiment, fundamentals, and technicals.
Shorting the whole market sounds like a good idea right now. I'm looking at:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=MZZ
S&P 500 should drop back to the ~800 level. If that happens one would make a ~< 40% ROI off of MZZ. It is, however, a risky play.
Well, no need to answer anymore, it has already happened.
I'm expected to accept my ph D. degree in Korea and want to experience of Posdoc in USA, especially Scripps.
Your project made me " be afraid".
Could you explain other PI as like Ghadiri that you know, please"?
In fact, I went to webpage of Ghadiri and the page was strange a little.
And then, I examed "Ghadiri " in google and found your blog.
I don't know that is a luck or an unluck, if you will tell me all Professors are similar with him.
Reza is a REALLY NICE GUY. He and I used to chat at the gym. But, he is just a very, very bad manager.
You will find that almost all PIs in the United States are bad managers. That is because who becomes a scientist? The kid who got picked on in high school for wearing glasses.
A better question would be: Who is NOT a bad manager?
If you're dead set on Scripps, I would suggest Phil Dawson. He is a super nice guy, and actually a pretty good manager. But you better love peptide chemistry. Also, he's kind of almost too nice. There have been eras in his lab where bad people postdocs have trampled all over the lab and made it a hellhole.
Yeah, Phil's a good guy. Amazing considering who he did HIS postdoc with...
IIRC it was barely even a year.
And his grad advisor--man, how did that dude come out of his training not seriously scarred for life?
Hello Andrei - I really like your site. A few questions: what really excites you in science/technology? Beyond that (professional stuff)? Finally, how were you so patient when people barraged you with Gerald Joyce questions that were tangential (at best) to the point of your blog?
http://www.amazon.com/Novel-Efficient-Synthesis-Cadaverine/dp/1448627176
Apparently not so fictional.
RB, I maintain the book still sucks, but the kernel of the idea is there.
Are you thinking of writing another?
What city from back in Sovok are you from?
Andrei is going to be the next Phil Ivey!
Hey Andrei, Since you are Scripps insider, could you tell something about Boger's lab?
Boger's lab: Lots of favoritism (loves grad students, postdocs are dirt), doesn't let you develop your own ideas, typical crappy postdoc experience. The name might help you get somewhere, but your life is gonna suck while you're there.
Hi,
I just posted your website to my blog. A similar incident with details here :
This is a corruption incident where the University was charged by a Federal Court.
http://sidath.senadheera.net/
And your website: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2318604249&ref=mf
Rhe blog and the STATEMENT OF FACTS.is also here :
http://corruptioninacademia.blogspot.com/
Best Regards,
Sid.
mmmm...5M$ more to spend? http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20100920/ghadiri.html
Hi Andrei,
I'm really enjoying the blog (as a former phd student that has since switched to the MS track). Do you know if you're going to be posting anything else in the future? Maybe your thoughts on Graduate student unionization?
Hi,
Thanks, good to hear! Yeah, I don't know, I'm letting it be for now. I was very curious to get some exposure and responses. I wanted to get a perspective on where people's minds were wrt the issues. And, I think, I've already gotten that. So now I am lacking further motivation, basically. If, say, grad students were crying out for change en masse, I'd possibly be interested in playing some part in the 'revolution' by writing more or whatever. But the current situation doesn't appear to me to be anywhere near explosive. Which is fine, of course.
Some kind of unionization could help grad students, probably. But I don't really see how it could come to be, where it would come from. Besides, making life better for grad students and postdocs would put a strain on the whole academic system. There are ways to compensate by increasing efficiency (like improving scientific communication practices etc.), but there are significant barriers that need to be overcome in order to do that as well. Personally, if I were to do this, I'd opt to try and outcompete the present system, rather than reform it. Either way, it'll all work out for the better eventually, I'm sure. Might take a while though.
Wouldn't unionization make things *worse* for grad students?
I mean the whole problem is that nobody is told at the outset how shitty it is to be a grad student, that people need to GET OUT of the enterprise. Wouldn't unionization achieve exactly the opposite of that?
But collective bargaining would shift some of the power away from advisors and administrators and hopefully change some of the things that make grad student life shitty.
I think the main problems facing this would be the unwillingness of those graduate students who are WAY too indoctrinated to strike (drop everything and bring the university to a standstill for a bit) and the high percentage of international students on visas who face deportation if they do strike (diluting the effect of a strike).
Shoot, getting an agreement from the administration/faculty to advertise stipends as payment minus fees (forcing them to raise stipends to stay competitive), offer quality health insurance, and limit work hours would be a start. I just think that it would need to occur on a massive scale in order to avoid the obvious pitfall of decreasing university output relative to universities without reforms in place.
P.S. Same Anon as the commenter a few comments back, just want to keep my anonymity.
? Never had a problem with administration misrepresenting salaries. Never had a problem with administration not dispensing health insurance.
And limiting work hours? Come on now. What, do you want to graduate in 12 years like humanities PhDs? A PhD is not an entitlement you're supposed to get 'just for putting time in'. And if it does become that, then fuck, what's the point of even having one?
I never said anything about "just putting time in". You're awfully close to building a strawman there. I do think that the practice of working students to the point of sleep deprivation creates a hazardous work environment though, my argument is that subsets of students are being (either explicitly or implicitly) asked to work hours that put their mental and physical health at risk.
A set of maximums for hours worked in a 48 hour period and 7 day week along with assured vacation days (saturdays and sundays shouldn't count) would at least make sure students are rested enough to not put themselves and others at risk in the lab. I'm not looking for a 40 hour work week either. 60 hours is probably a good medium though.
"asked to work hours that put their mental and physical health at risk"
Then they should QUIT.
I will tell you what will happen if the graduate students unionize. The graduate students will be just as miserable as before, the only difference will be that there will be a new career path: A graduate student that fails to produce science will now be able to become a "professional graduate student organizer". In general, the graduate student will be just as miserable and powerless as before, and a portion of the power and their salary will go to someone who putzes around making political noise.
You ever been to the AFL-CIO headquarters in DC?
This is what it looks like:
http://www.eekarchitects.com/portfolio/12-public-civic-cultural/92-afl-cio-headquarters
It is a slap in the face of the american blue-collar worker.
Conjecture. It's a building for a national group that takes on a TON of labor related work, they might need things like centralized office space you think?
I think unions are a good thing, generally. Of course there are going to be efficiency and corruption issues, like in any other large enterprise, but the positives outweigh the negatives.
40 hour work week, child labor laws, family and medical leave act, and so on go a long way in making life better for workers. Do you think corporations would adhere to these rules if unions weren't around to lobby for them? How many of the things that your average worker takes for granted (like a reasonable work week) does the average grad student get? I mean shit, we're exempt from minimum wage laws for god's sake!
I think unions are socially beneficial as collective bargaining tools and for worker protection when labor is fungible and commoditized. Factory workers, janitorial staff, (and increasingly things like drivers, pilots etc) should be unionized.
See, unions aggregate labor. If you're of the opinion that every grad student exists to take a salary and feed their mouth, that they are interchangeable, and aggregatable, then fine. I think, though that the purpose of graduate school is something completely different. Part of graduate school is to specialize and develop individual strengths and proclivities. This is antithetical to the process of unionization.
See what you're not understanding is the cause of the problem. People who are doing grad school 'just because the couldn't think of anything else to do' should fucking stay away, because they are only making it worse for the rest of us by depressing the cost of labor.
You should really read this.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-us-produce-too-m
And part of that burden should be on the schools themselves. I agree that there are way too many grad students depressing the cost of labor, but I think that there needs to be some force (say, a grad student union?) limiting the number of grad students a school has on staff.
And grad students, in a way, are labor. Universities and advisors often treat them as interchangeable and easily replaced. You seem to be putting the onus on grad students themselves rather than the academic system that pushes the overall policy.
I don't think advisors think of grad students as interchangeable and easily replaced. Most of them take somewhat seriously to their mentorship role, it's just that they're socially maladjusted enough to really do it in a fucked up way.
You might have a better argument about postdocs, though.
I'll agree with you that postdocs have it worse.
lol. postdocs.
40 hour work week. What mythological planet are you living on? My college graduate cohort is effectively either 1) unemployed or 2) working > 50 work weeks, independent of what they studied.
In my opinion the trend away from this has very little directly to do with capital/labor relationship and everything to do with secular inflation and debt expansion.
Or the current demonization of collectivized labor and the pervasive attitude of "you should be grateful you even have a job, now kiss my ass" from major employers. They're taking advantage of an economic downturn, simple as that.
There aren't many people that demonize collective labor as a principle. Now, if you're going to include the people that demonize the political machinations and misconduct of the unions as they are, then, maybe. But whose fault is that?
The U.S. political right begs to differ, and I'd consider them a sizable portion of the population...
All interesting points, but sadly a union would be utterly toothless for graduate students. Let me explain why:
Unions work for industries which provide a vital service. When unionised transport workers (train drivers/signallers for example) go on strike, everyone sits up and takes notice because they can't get to work in the morning and (even worse) struggle to get home at night. The press makes a fuss, the general population makes a fuss, and 9 times out of 10, the unionised workers get their way.
Now, what happens when the union of graduate students order their members out on strike over working hours? NOTHING. SQUAT. ZILCH. No one notices, no one cares. Sure, if they strike for 6 months, it would be noticed. But who can go without pay for 6 months?
The 'Withdrawal of labour' threat is utterly key to a powerful, relevant union. And for that to be a genuine threat, the unionised workers HAVE to be in a key, frontline service. Sorry guys - doing a PhD really doesn't come under this heading (even though a few of you seem to think it does)..
Ps Andrei I have been absolutely fascinated by some of the stories on this blog. You're a brave guy for pulling it together, big respect.
I think this is a salient point.
although, I would suggest replacing the qualifier "vital" to "valuable". Of course, this could be belying a bias I have about the relative value of a PhD student to society - I'll take the controversial view that a shortbook hedgefunder is more valuable to society than the average PhD student... A PhD student will slave away at a project that may never be useful or even interesting to anyone but a small cadre of effete intellectuals high in their ivory tower. A shortbook hedgefunder very often is responsible for ferreting out idiocy and fraud in the corporate management class.
But are they worth what they're paid? I'd argue that corrected for compensation you're coming out ahead with the PhD students on average (as a portion will create work of great societal benefit) since you're paying them a pittance. The hedgefunders, however, get paid a shat-ton and collapsed the financial system.
No, the hedge funders did not collapse the financial system. They only helped expose the rot that was already there. An exponentially growing money supply is not a sustainable political system, and the economic consequences are... collapse. Peel off the bandage quickly, I say. In that sense, no way a PhD squares up. We're contributing to the problem.... Where do you think (most) of our money comes from?
Unionization: Do Not Want
@ Anon
I fully agree that a grad student union is the way to go. Sure, it will place a burden on the academic system. But the result will be to encourage academia to restrict grad student enrollments - which will help curb the ongoing PhD glut, which continues to dump bright and promising PhD graduates onto an endless series of post-docs, because of lack of real opportunity in either academia or industry.
Not only would unionization encourage academia to restrict grad student enrollments, it would force it to become more efficient. For example, tenured professors who refuse teach would be pressured back into the classroom to teach. That would force it to learn how to economize - a good thing, since academia behaves as if it were immune from good economic practices.
And, most importantly, we would have a shot in hell at improving the quality of life for a grad student. We might see grad students that are not on the verge of a nervous breakdown; who sleep 8 hours on an average night, and who eat a well-rounded diet because they can afford it; and who live in an apartment that is not infested with rats that start to crawl inside the walls at precisely 3:00AM, with the occasional "squeek squeek" that ensures you won't sleep; or that you can afford an apartment that is not completely infested with hundreds of blood-sucking bugs during the warm summer months, because the cracks around the window frame of that old house are so large, that you cannot possibly keep your lights on past 8PM without being swarmed by said bugs.
That said, unionizing would almost surely be shot down. The grad student population is too timid to do anything that might cast them in a bad light, and most would probably rather take the punishment of grad school and get out, instead of fighting for better conditions for themselves and those who will come after them. And, if grad students fought for it - and they have in the past - university officials would almost surely do everything in their power to prevent it from happening. You have to remember that academia, like every other industry, lives off of money, and anything that threatens to take away more of that money will be fought with tooth and nail.
On a positive note, president of U. of illinois Michael Hogan sleeps well at night - he, and his $600,000 annual salary, and his $225,000 retention bonus, and his presidential house, and his presidential perks. We're happy for him.
great blog. i'd love to share some stories from my neck of the woods. i will say that in my travels scripps is a pretty "special" place and is certainly not the normal academic environment. also, there are some decent inspirational advisors in academia that are famous, smart, and running great labs. . . they are just hard to find. also, a disturbing trend i'm seeing is that these advisors, because they are decent, are fed up with the way the "game" is played and rather than change it are content to just walk away. have you noticed how the most influential PIs are not necessarily the one's with nobel prizes or the most influential work. this ends up being terrible for students because now the other PIs (that play the game) have full control and can run the system (publications, awards, promotions) the way they see fit.
have to say, I'm working with a nobel laureate right now, and he's just about the coolest guy ever. He even does experiments in the lab.
Which nobel laureate are you working with? I am looking for Postdoc positions so it would be cool to know about good PIs
Yeah. Good luck with that. As I wrote below: I'm actually in a position that was slated for a BS/BA biologist.
I'm not too terribly interested in posting my PI's name here, but if you're really interested in knowing where there aren't jobs but are cool PIs, respond to this and if andre wants to froward your info to me I'd be happy to send it to you privately.
Andrei:
Is this a good cover letter?
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/10/29/npf-the-open-cover-letter
Has Reza contacted you at all about this website in the past few months? I think he would surely have noticed/found it by now. This is the kind of information that could (potentially) ruin a scholar's career.
Andrei is not specifically writing against Reza Ghadiri, but against the notion of spending years in graduate school. and even when that happens, the odds of making it to the "Show" (a tenue track at a research university) is rather low and one still has to go through the arduous trek of being a post-doc for a few years.
Andrei,
We need more Reza stories!
In any case, I thought it was interesting that TSRI published their alumni database stats as a part of their accreditation:
http://education.scripps.edu/accreditation/alumni_2008_pub_summary.pdf
It's a little hard to see, but you could subtract "total pubs" from "pubs in the last year and beyond" to get an idea of the publication distribution five num (minimum, lower-hinge, median, upper-hinge, maximum). This information is useful (and typically difficult to obtain) in the following ways for graduate students:
1. Shows that an important part of a graduate school's accreditation is based on publications of their students. Many students have papers sitting on JXDs everywhere, this is strong evidence that shows that publications are a very serious part of how they are judged and that multi-year delays are unacceptable.
2. The range of careers that graduate students can look forward to. Most appear to be biotech companies, some faculty (important info is what are the locations of those institutions?). How may go in to fields completely unrelated (e.g. law)?
3. What proportion of students stay at the institute they graduated from? In what capacity?
Too bad they didn't have first year salary; as that would be useful information as well.
A meta analysis across schools would be even more interesting; can't be bothered to find the same reports from other institutions.
Hehe. I actually got a job as a BA/BS biologist (off of craigslist, no shit). Got a 25% pay raise over my postdoc position, too.
Maybe someone reading this blog would find this somewhat interesting,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-productivity
Isn't it obvious why this is happening? Granting agencies allow professors to spin off companies. So, quite a bit of effort gets channeled into results that are for whatever reason intended to be commercialized. This doesn't get published, especially if it doesn't work.
Hey - great blog. I probably missed it somewhere in the postings, but what's your "day job" now?
My take on much of this? There is no good or bad PhD. It's a goal and once reached, there are many "next step" paths to take. My hindsight tells me that PhD students and postdocs are actually - or should be - a lot like entrepreneurs. Got a good (research or business) idea? In the beginning it's got to be your "life" nearly 24/7, but there's a plan and an objective. Once you get there, it shouldn't be 24/7 anymore. Two examples? Barry Marshall, MD and Bill Gates. It's a right-brain left-brain thing. The schedule is in your right brain somewhere. The individual steps (moments) are in the right brain. I run marathons. The finish line is always there on some level of awareness, but each step is seen somewhere on the right. There is a time distortion so the fact that you are out there for 3 1/2 hours doesn't make an impression until you cross the finish line. Then you can relax.
Research? I should feel like play, not work. (it's getting funded that is the real pain) If it doesn't, you've got to get into other spots.
About me? I got my PhD a bunch of years ago - in the 70's - did two postdocs, spent 3 years working in a cancer research lab in a hospital (funding ran out) spent 7 years teaching in a couple of universities (no chance of tenure) and then moved on to work in the medical device industry and in "big pharma." Lived and worked in both the US and in Europe. Now I've retired and do freelance writing and editing for people who want to get their work (mostly medical rather than basic research) published.
I'm an IT entrepreneur.
I developed much of the taste for calling my own shots while in grad school. The most worthwhile things I took away from those years came from me concentrating on anything but what I was told to spend my time on. From paying attention to things I was encouraged to disregard and ignore, be it by a particular PI or the grad school culture in general.
Play is good, I agree, it's the best way to feel about what you do. You could say I didn't find all the entertainment I wanted in a research lab. Some, but not all.
I am always impressed when a PhD holder and established scientist can write flawless english, as you can. It's so rare.
Maybe you didn't want a tenure-track, but they certainly don't advertise to people up front that you can do two post-docs and then teach with no option of tenure.
Are you a bus driver now? If you're not driving buses, what do you do with your time - are you wealthy and living the socialite life like Paris Hilton (minus the short skirt), are you lingering waiting for a non-bus-driving opportunity to come along, or have you already found a good opportunity to pay your bills?
I am curious. I would like to know what happens to a bright grad student when he quits being a grad student.
Why are candle flames so unstable? Every time I light a candle, its flame flickers around as somebody were blowing lightly on it. When I flick my fingers above it, it doesn't even affect its behavior - even though flicking my fingers should disturb local air flow. The flames behave exactly as before, flickering about as if no fingers had been flicked above them - unless I flick my entire hand.
Why? Why, Andrei, does my candle behave the way it does? It's almost as if it begged me to stay in academia, and get a degree, followed by another degree - followed by another degree, but to no avail. Because the candle doesn't know what I know, that academia is a circle, and it just feeds back unto itself.
So why does this candle beg me to asnwer this stupid question? Why not a steady flame instead of a flickering flame, that flickers for no good reason? Why a question and not no question?
Hi Andrei! Thanks for the site. There is a need for it. Is your PI still working in The Scripps Research Institute? Any thoughts on how to make his (or any other dishonest PI) scientific career more difficult? Students and postdocs should fight back somehow.
I was thinking exactly the same thing....
http://sidath.senadheera.net/
Give me a break.
"I requested change of work hours from 12pm to 8pm instead of 9am to 5pm, which was denied by my supervisor" and you were fired. What did you expect - a pat on the back for the good work?
Then again, I expected this. I already knew that for each genuinely good website on academic unfairness - like http://www.rezaghadiri.net - there would be ten bad websites centered around petty bullshit. Just - it would be nice we could not do that.
Sidath,
Take a close critical look at your page reveals that there some credibility issues.
You admit to suffering from bipolar disease, and I feel terrible that is a condition you have to endure; but take an honest view of things (assuming you haven't already). Something that popped up at me was this:
From a talk (linked) : A four-Nanoparticle system that can emulate any circuit, with 1/1000000000 the original size and increase it's speed by 1000X to 100,000X .....http://sidath.senadheera.net/4-NP-loop-b.pdf
Without really knowing a lot about nanoparticles (or circuit theory), the talk title smacks of hyperbole. Actually looking at the file reveals that you present a picture of a incomprehensible chalkboard with nebulous allusions to an amazing secret way to validate this fantastic claim, that and some facebook screenshots to support your argument.
Take a close look at what you are doing, and ask yourself if you are really being scientifically honest and credible. it is a very tough and hard thing to do, but you will be better off for it.
There are legitimate problems with the way graduate students are treated in graduate school. But these problems shouldn't be confused with our occasional spoiled or petty problems.
We all recognize that there are still expectations of us. We're not asking academia to lower its academic standard - we're just asking it to improve the way it treats its graduate students, and that it optimize the Ph.D. process.
The problem I see is a lot of students getting on the bandwagon crying "my adviser sucks too!", not necessarily because of a bad adviser, but because of their own spoiled attitudes.
If we want some legitimacy in this issue, we have to be able to separate our spoiled problems with the genuine academic problems that ought to be addressed. We can't all just go crying "me too!" just because.
Let me be the devil's advocate here.
A while ago, I decided to take a job and stop my graduate studies at the M.S. level. It took a while, but I found a good job in a great location with a good salary. This is especially meaningful given the bad job market we've had since 2008.
As it happens, you don't recognize the things that make you, well, you. You never do, until you don't have them anymore. And just the thought of something new and exciting doesn't help a whole lot.
I realized that my graduate studies were the backbone of who I am. They gave me a meaningful goal to work towards. A challenge, something not trivial. Something not just for money. Something out in the future, not yet very well defined, but promising.
There was a reason why I felt compelled to take on a job and stop at the M.S. level. I felt I was falling behind my peers outside academia, for one. But mostly, I had become overly sensitized to the mean ways of academia. They're there, to be sure.
But now there is that void - suddenly, the one thing that made some sense out of you isn't there anymore. At first, it feels just great, because you're frustrated with academia. But then the smoke clears, and you have - gasp! - a job.
The thing about the job is that it is that - a job. It pays the bills, it has its challenges, it introduces you to new people. But it doesn't graduate you into something else. I don't know - there is no finish line, all of a sudden. There are projects, but it's different.
It feels like "so this is it?". It doesn't feel like far enough. Some people can ring cash registers all day long and not feel a void. But for anyone who goes through graduate school and does well, there is a void and it is enormous.
So there - for all the mean ways of academia, I feel completely out of place not being there anymore. It's weird. And to be at peace with my decision, I had to agree to pursue the Ph.D. on the side. I know - it's a "Ph.D.". There is no such a thing as a part-time Ph.D., in the literal sense of the word - not in science. Either it consumes you, or it doesn't work. But, to the extent that it can be done, I had to agree with my "conscience" that I would do it.
So there. Academia sucks, but then it sucks to live without it. I don't know.
Just a different perspective, to help balance out the going "anti-PhD" attitude. To be sure, the PhD seriously needs a revamping. But, also to be sure, it can be difficult to part ways. It's like ending a relationship.
I think this is mostly an illusion. You(we) are in school our whole lives. We think that's the way the world is when in fact that is the artificial part. I'm not anti-PhD. I'm getting one in a semester or two. I'm pro-reality. There is so much BS surrounding the PhD that any dose of reality sounds like anti-PhD. It is all illusion. And I say that not as an opinion, but objectively and I can and will continue to prove it. It is an artificial system designed to stratify people. The biggest cons of grad school are the obvious facts right in front of our nose that we choose to deny. I got a Master's and then worked and am now back for a PhD. I felt I wasn't getting anywhere in my job and had the lingering feeling of "unfinished business" from my MS. I was wrong. There's nothing here. That's all I can tell you.
That's deep Cato.
Almost too deep for boots. The bottom line is, don't do it the way I did it. The person should actually do all those things that are totally unreasonable. Have your project halfway done, at least the literature review, almost to the proposal level, find the right advisor, contact everyone. Only when you are absolutely certain of your success do you go to school. What I did was let it gnaw at me for years rather than actually doing the research that might have divulged that I would have been better off doing a project in my garage, and I'm not exaggerating.
Hello!
I am especially interested in the group of Phil Baran! Can anybody say anything about him or his lab? How is life there as a postdoc?