Nature’s survey of 6k grad students reveals the turbulence of doctoral research

Also, The New York Times Magazine published "Lethal Chemistry at Harvard" in their November 29, 1998 issue, detailing the suicide of chemistry grad student Jason Altom:

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/29/magazine/lethal-chemistry...

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.

I forget the name of the other famous physicist (not Dyson) who said it, but the quote was: "I've seen more [persons] destroyed by Physics than by drugs".

I don't regret my Ph.D., but I still remember the monotone voice in which I defended my dissertation. Listen to advice here. Powerlessness is quite something to experience when one is (has been) locked in for years.

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.)

The top AI labs don't widthold graduate student funding. Almost nobody does this, as funding is often required before taking students and reviewed on a semester basis (typically planning forms) , and the checks are obviously issued by the university.

>I hope things change soon.

They will not. I have seen what a bad supervisor does to his students and it is not good. If you insist on the madness of a PhD, at least find a supervisor willing to treat you as a human being.

> indirect pressure tactics my supervisor uses like not responding to emails

Are you sure this is a deliberate strategy

It helps if you can let go of the top places. I've done a PhD at a subtop institute, less well known, and I made a rule of not working in the weekend/evening (unless it was my own initiative, which was rarely), and I had a blast. I'm doing a postdoc now at another subtop place, which will be the end of my academic career because getting tenure of course still requires more than average, which I'm happy to admit I am.

Joing a top institute is starting training with olympians: most of us can't keep up, but that's fine. Join a local fitness club instead, and suddenly you can. You won't win medals, but you'll still learn a shit-ton, do good research and have fun.

The others are right, it is probably not going to change.

From that short sentence it seems that your supervisor is doing a lot of things at once and you are low in the priority list. I don't think it's personal (unless you have clear evidence for the contrary).

If you're not ok with that (some people prefer being able to work in peace) and you cannot change it (some profs are like cats, show them something interesting and you'll have more of their attention than you ever wanted) see if there is someone else around to help. Are there any postdocs or other seniors who could fill that hole? Also talk to the other PhD students and see what their impression of the supervisor is.

It is very important that the supervisor/group and you are at least a decent fit. Think about what kind of working conditions and supervision you need, (and what would be harmful), and then consider if the match is good enough. (For example, do you want to be left alone or do you need closer mentoring? What kind of mentoring? Do you want to work with peers?) If in doubt about something major, you could also try to talk to the supervisor directly.

The most important thing for your mental health is mostly not the research question but your research conditions. Please take care of yourself.

You should really consider a different advisor. In my experience that is by far the #1 most important factor in how your experience will be. You will be putting yourself in their hands much more than you already have. It's entirely possible to have an enjoyable experience with someone who supports a healthy work life balance. Of course when crunch time hits there will be very long crazy days, but when that isnt happening a good advisor will give you space, let you work when and where you want, and not engage in toxic behavior.

As someone that went through that many years ago, all I regret is not having cut my losses earlier, even thought I cut them pretty early.

Don't forget to value yourself. The relationship between you and your advisor is deeply personal, especially for you.

It is important to periodically evaluate whether or not your situation is a good one. If it is not, it may be time to make a change.

The structures of academia can lead to outcomes where good-intentioned people to take actions (or often, inactions) that are, in an absolute sense, abusive. When academia is good, it can be great, but is essential to recognize when things are not okay and take steps to make them better. Communication is often a great first step.

A wise friend once passed on an aphorism that has been useful to me: "Hope is not a strategy."

I study on my own and present it on my website, no paywall or subscription. I do what I want, rather than what a professor tells me.

I've been featured on some top websites.

My point is, you don't need academia necessarily. And after meeting PhD grads, I'm not sure I believe in the positive association with intelligence and accomplishments.

Really true. We need more examples of people completing PhDs in 1-2 years because they've already done the research and written most of the thesis. It's totally possible.

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.

> 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...

It's an indicator of intelligence.

Although I'm glad to have learned at work, that a PhD is not the only way to showcase this.

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.

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.

PhDs are fundamentally not about a team effort. They are about recognising a single persons ability to produce and communicate novel research in a highly specific area. Unrealistic expectations are as much a part of this process as they are anything else.

It happens occasionally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Stokhof

My advisor pseudo follows this. He does his best to bring in pairs of students that will be on _similar_ topics. (of course they are both responsible for their independent research and thesis). That way they can struggle together and find their way, it helps lesson the burden he has as idea generation now is covered and "getting stuck" is less worrisome as you are stuck with someone. As the students grow, they separate into their own thesis but the great part is they tend to still collaborate with their peer, so even by thesis end, both know each other's thesis pretty well.

When the incentives change. Which means probably not in the next few decades.

Or perhaps if there is enough bad publicity and/or lawsuits by parents/families of students who died from suicide, and/or if enough grad students unionize and take action.

Universities hate bad publicity. It's one of the few forms of leverage against them.

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.

When we unionize.