
Nature’s survey of 6k grad students reveals the turbulence of doctoral research - hhs
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03459-7
======
andrewl
_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._

It was discussed here at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19322834](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."

~~~
VvR-Ox
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.

~~~
pm90
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.

------
throwaway_shame
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.

~~~
musicale
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.)

~~~
montalbano
I just finished my PhD.

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.

~~~
throwaway_shame
I am glad that you were able to get a better supervisor. Did you face any kind
of retaliation from your first supervisor?

~~~
montalbano
Not in my case due to details I can't go into.

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).

~~~
throwaway_shame
Very valuable advice. Thank you!

------
mikorym
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.

~~~
bonniemuffin
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.

~~~
ISL
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.

~~~
mygo
I would love to learn more about how you go about running your own lab! How
can I follow?

~~~
ISL
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:

[https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=vi-A5dkAAAAJ...](https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=vi-A5dkAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate)

~~~
mygo
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?

------
1_over_n
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.

------
ImaCake
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.

~~~
yodsanklai
> Honestly, what I see is that every single person in research is unhappy in
> some way

Would they be happier doing a different job? The grass is always greener...

~~~
ImaCake
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.

------
Traubenfuchs
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.)

~~~
asdff
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.

------
AnimalMuppet
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.

------
ksey3
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.

~~~
refurb
One of the main goals of a PhD is educating an individual so they can
independently direct a research program.

Awarding PhDs to pairs of people goes directly against that.

------
noobermin
Tbh I'm tired of the Nature articles about this. When is something going to
change?

~~~
knzhou
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.

~~~
asdff
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).

