Hacker News Reader

Doing this behind her back, and without recourse, refusing to talk about it to the person in question, basically the whole way this happened, does not shine a good light on the advisors here.

Plus, you may have noticed, she wrote under a non-identifiable name (outside maybe people already in the know) and didn't name the people in question, nor the institutions. So yeah, she's pissed, IMHO rightfully so, especially since this is a career breaking thing and without recourse.

So personal recommandations should be disclosed ? That kinda goes against the point of trying to have an open discussion about a potential appliant. And what would the recourse be anyways ?

What good would a talk do, since admittedly it's a person and not a work problem ? Do any good come out of people explaining how they despise your attitude, especially with high stakes, where no response will ever bring closure ?

Yes, btw I hope the publisher has more insight than the reader and does a background check.

Edit : though I agree that the team should've hold a discussion, as sterile as it probably would've been, for it's own reputation.

Well, then your response could be summed up as "there's really nothing to do here." In which case, since the lab holds all the other cards, and shows no sign of changing course, the only valid recourse would be for the candidate to make this issue as visible as possible to all potential employers, including names and everything. Assuming that there is no consensus to be reached between her and the lab, let the other parties come to a conclusion after learning both sides. After all, not saying anything about this to a potential employer, knowing what they will hear from the lab, would be kind of self-defeating in the literal sense, no?

If she knew that her academic career prospects were being sabotaged by her advisor rather than having her mental health deteriorate while failing to pursue an academic career in her field, she could have pivoted to industry or a separate topic.

In which case she might be able to burn bridges, and call out people, and just tell her side of the story, if she... dunno... published it somewhere.

I doubt she views her current situation as better than the alternatives she would've had if she had been told in the first place.

One way or another, we can't really know.

But I believe people have an unalienable right to tell their version of a story.

As far as these story go, this is one is very civil (and doesn't name the people that are accused of destroying a career and a life).

What I don't really understand is what this comment brings to the table. Why try to cast aspersions on an otherwise mild testimony, the truth of which is pretty much unknowable without further details?

What if the person is 100% right?

Well, what's the point of the article in the first place anyways ? Yeah stuff like that happen, have and will, and sometime verbally so good luck fighting that. Self-improvement seems the most efficient way of fighting that for oneself.

I just wanted to remind that the other side of the story was way more probable. Because outcasting her for her accent, despite all the good it brings a team to sprout successful academics (we're talking a field full of educated people, so able to forecast consequences of their decisions, although pride and ego sometimes makes them do bad stuff), is really not the most plausible outcome. But now I feel like such explanations are becoming default ones.

> Yeah stuff like that happen, have and will, (...) good luck fighting that

Fatalism like the kind you suggest adds nothing to the discussion, and indeed to the academic community. It allows bad actors to keep acting badly. An article like this might motivate someone in power to examine whether this kind of conduct occurs in their institution. I don't know about you, but I see a positive expected value.

And I am not sure what you mean by the other side of the story. She has positive feedback from another supervisor, if the article is to be believed, so isn't the probable explanation a difference of personalities? And is there really any non-pride-or-ego-related reason to try and prevent someone not just from working with you, but in the wider community of which you are part? I can not interpret that behaviour in any way other than malice.

Well if you cut part of the sentence, of course it sounds fatalist, but that refered to the specific part where people talk and use phones to the same extend of giving honest, confidential feedback. And you'll eventually have no spur of those discussions. And bad students will still be spoken of, as luckily do bad advisors.

Please don't tweak sentences to make them fit to whatever discourse you want.

As for the second paragraph, between a freshly graduated PhD and advisors there is still a long way. I hardly see them competing for the same spots. Sure there are probably wicked minds that would try to evict geniuses, but said geniuses would be picked up by less egoistic people (that are luckily way more common).

Rivalry is a thing in academics of course, but from advisors towards their own phds ? There's no stake there for an advisor, but preventing a bad element trained in your team to cast a bad light on you.

Your entire first paragraph as written conveys that the situation can not be changed, and the victim must change themself. This, in my opinion, is fatalist.

Please clarify what you mean if you find you have been misunderstood instead of getting angry and assuming malice.

I know several people in my tiny part of academia alone, whose eminence is well established, and who would not much change this by telling colleagues a certain individual is impossible to work with. I agree that it would take a vindictive mind to do so, but I am asking you to explain the facts any other way:

> Firstly, my eminent and influential PhD supervisor had let it be widely known that they thought I was an unpleasant person, impossible to work with, fundamentally stupid, and that I definitely shouldn’t be doing a doctorate.

I know no decent people who would say this about someone in a professional setting, let alone write it down and send it to many people. Also, no honest assessment of someone's academic skills can include the words "fundamentally stupid" if they are able to get into a PhD program, right?

Who you recommend is a reflection on you. If the author is actually difficult to work with and a colleague asks you about the author, not giving an honest answer has negative consequences on your professional reputation.

It doesn't seem like malice to me, particularly since the author seems quite dislikeable based on their article.

There's plenty of educated people that are incompetent. It matters less than you think.

> I mean, we're all old enough to have met people that despite competence are hard to work (or be) with and would rather not have to deal with.

I agree. It's not a black-and-white thing. Some people _might_ add value under some easy metric like "published works", but be impossible to work with under other metrics that are hard to measure but still important like agreeableness[1].

When someone is failing without a clear line on a workplace environment, more often than not it's because of that one specific trait (or lack thereof). I've certainly seen people that look great "on paper" and that never cross a line, but that still make me want to quit work just so I don't need to be around them.

1: https://www.psychologistworld.com/personality/agreeableness-...

I am of two minds.

There are people who are persecuted because they are outsiders and for no other reason. A case in point is the story of Rosalind Franklin.

On the other side, some people are brilliant yet toxic. You can't have them work in a group because they will bring down the productivity of the group. You have to decide if they are so brilliant you will work with them anyway. I have had two experiences with this, one was successful and the other was unsuccessful.

In the successful case I sat the guy down and told him that I couldn't fire the entire team and just keep him because I needed more than what he could produce. He agreed. I paired him up with a woman that he respected and the team of two formed an awesome team. She handled all of the interactions with outside teams.

The second case was someone who was both brilliant and exceedingly insecure. No amount of counseling fixed his problem. No amount of telling him that he didn't need to insult people to get respect fixed his problem. Sigh. Sometimes you have to let people go.

At the end of the day - the telling part of the story is the cowardice of Dora's advisors. The fact that they did not take their jobs seriously enough to become her mentors leads me to believe that they did not do their jobs.

Others have expressed thoughts I had as well, but to add:

I used to basically have your opinion, and then had two experiences that shifted my perspective.

The first was a colleague who was known for being overly frank, to put it mildly; for not having any internal controls on sharing what was on his mind. He was (and is) a brilliant individual who is every bit as competent as people much more accomplished than him. I watched him lose out on job prospect after prospect, and initially sort of thought "well, being able to work with someone easily is important." Eventually, though, I realized that what is far more insidious are all the narcissistic psychopaths who are socially skilled. This guy, while brash, actually was well-meaning and had a heart. I'd far rather work with him than many of the other horrible individuals I've worked with; he's at least as deserving of better employment, if not more.

The second was a case where we were hiring, and this brilliant individual applied. Everyone agreed he was heads above the best -- this being a faculty position at a research institution. Eventually everyone started complaining about how socially awkward he was, how his presentational style was difficult, and how he did these weird things in interviews. The thing was, he wasn't mean or cruel or anything like that, or even markedly eccentric, just a little weird. Someone objected to this, pointing out that it was bizarre for us to be dismissing someone who was described as a genius in letters, and that we agreed was such, because of socially unusual (but not difficult) behavior. The question this person on the hiring committee raised was "what are we actually wanting? What is our mission?" The applicant didn't get the job, and it always struck me as unfortunate.

I guess my point is that even if someone is unpleasant to work with, sometimes that's not the most important thing, and even when it is important, the way that they are unpleasant matters. This isn't even getting into how capricious and cruel people can be in their assessments of others' behaviors.

I agree that the way of unpleasantness matters.

But for your first example obviously that specific way did rub a lot of people the wrong way. Because you don't mind it, and you had time to get to know him past that, doesn't have to be the majority.

And yes, socially weird people don't surprise me as not fitting in faculty position. You'll eventually have to defend your team, look for opportunities, teach, mentor... You can't give a bad vibe right off with such proeminent roles, because ultimately they're very much based on relationships.

Surely there must be some room for those brilliant but weird people, in small institutions that don't need that much PR or something. And sure some people get to be Paul Erdös and be so dramatically brilliant and querky that the rest is overlooked. That's not true for the average joe.

My friends think I have no empathy (as some people probably think reading my comments!), but in a professional setting (mine being veterinarian, clearly it's not really fitting) "being myself" would do more harm than good, so I'm just playing the expected role, and things are fine, and even enjoyable. Choosing one's battles. I'd rather feel good in my job even if unauthentic.

I don't understand how that's not being self critical. On finding that they're not well liked they thought up aspects of their personality others might not like.

It's a list of things that others might dislike, which are not under their own control. Thus shifting the blame onto others rather than considering that one's own actions may be the problem.

They can't control what others dislike or control the having of those traits; they certainly can control what they do going forward though and this information is useful in shaping that.

I also disagree heavily that things are either under your control or the fault of others.

For me the point is: you should treat people well even if you don't like them. And that includes not spreading slander.

Ok, but who do you treat well in this situation? The unpleasant student, or the person who is asking for information about them? If you remain silent about your honest opinion of the student, you are potentially foisting this unpleasantness on your colleague who might hire her.

For me, the takeaway here is to be honest and to not exaggerate, especially in matters of import. You can't always do the best thing for everyone, so when that's impossible, let the truth be your guide. The other thing is that the adviser should have brought these concerns to the student while she was still under his tutelage.