Well let me tell you about the biggest disservice academia does to PhD students. Or at least some of them. But it’s worth mentioning, my PhD is in computer science, so your mileage may vary.
So first, in my experience, there are two kinds of advisors. There are some who give their students a ton of latitude, and are genuinely interested in what they get up to. Then there are those who see grad students as pokémon, and the reason to catch 'em all is that it helps with grant funding. These professors set the agenda, and their offices have all the whips and yokes you could need for slave-driving.
The latter professors prepare grad students for the realities of academia. The former group mean well, but I can’t help but feel they’re trying to live vicariously through their students. Because they long for the freedom they once enjoyed.
Actual academia is an unending series of songs and dances for funding, interspersed with teaching undergrads who don’t give a fuck. This is also why you almost certainly see a huge difference in professors’ attitudes toward undergrads versus grads: they have hope for grad students.
This is an interesting perspective! Don’t think I’ve looked at it quite this way - I want to believe that one can be a kind and also realistic mentor - that’s what I strive for. But the people who manage to get faculty positions are, by definition the ones who don’t heed all of the signals telling them that academia is a mug’s game.
The type that cannibalises students. Fortunately, I’m under someone better now, but I’m not really thrilled at participating in a system that tolerates that.
Ah yeah, I know the type. In CS those tend to be a more malicious version of the pokémon trainer sorts. Their main goal is career advancement, and they figure that parasitizing grad students (and postdocs) is how they can get there.
It’s like I said originally, academia has gone corporate, including the abusive middle managers.
2real4feels.
Well let me tell you about the biggest disservice academia does to PhD students. Or at least some of them. But it’s worth mentioning, my PhD is in computer science, so your mileage may vary.
So first, in my experience, there are two kinds of advisors. There are some who give their students a ton of latitude, and are genuinely interested in what they get up to. Then there are those who see grad students as pokémon, and the reason to catch 'em all is that it helps with grant funding. These professors set the agenda, and their offices have all the whips and yokes you could need for slave-driving.
The latter professors prepare grad students for the realities of academia. The former group mean well, but I can’t help but feel they’re trying to live vicariously through their students. Because they long for the freedom they once enjoyed.
Actual academia is an unending series of songs and dances for funding, interspersed with teaching undergrads who don’t give a fuck. This is also why you almost certainly see a huge difference in professors’ attitudes toward undergrads versus grads: they have hope for grad students.
This is an interesting perspective! Don’t think I’ve looked at it quite this way - I want to believe that one can be a kind and also realistic mentor - that’s what I strive for. But the people who manage to get faculty positions are, by definition the ones who don’t heed all of the signals telling them that academia is a mug’s game.
Unfortunately I had a third kind that should legitimately never have grad students.
Sorry to hear that. What are they like?
The type that cannibalises students. Fortunately, I’m under someone better now, but I’m not really thrilled at participating in a system that tolerates that.
Ah yeah, I know the type. In CS those tend to be a more malicious version of the pokémon trainer sorts. Their main goal is career advancement, and they figure that parasitizing grad students (and postdocs) is how they can get there.
It’s like I said originally, academia has gone corporate, including the abusive middle managers.