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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

I am curious. I would like to know what happens to a bright grad student when he quits being a grad student.