“How is your thesis going?” Students’ perspectives on mental health and stress
journals.plos.org
journals.plos.org
In a way, the grinder serves as a test of willpower and discipline and those who could persevere through it can say they have the mental fortitude to handle stress and still achieve results despite adverse circumstances. Whenever I am kinda stressed out, I recall my time in school and it gives me something similar to "I have been through worse, I can make this work".
On the other hand, I tell everyone who bothers to ask that no, a PhD is not worth it. Get a master and go to work. Or better, get a BS and make the company sponsor that master degree. That PhD will drain both your life and energy and once you got it, you will still need to compete against people of your level. Nothing changes except a permanent mental scar.
You don't realise how much some of us want to do research but can't get into academia because other, smarter people take the spots for prestige or money. Like, go away and just work on wall street if you're not interested in doing actual science.
I just want to offer that not everyone doing a PhD is doing so for reasons of money or prestige, and not all of them are coming from money or prestige. And the gatekeeping doesn't end once you get in, either. If anything it intensifies the further along you get, and by orders of magnitude the more your circumstances don't parse to something like {age = <30, marital_status = single, kids = false, parental_income = upper_class | middle_class, parental_support = true, needs_to_work_to_survive = false, parent_has_bachelors = true}
Diversity is a really important aspect in building PhD cohorts and research teams - only choosing the best candidates based on grades introduces a bad bias that may even exacerbate the situation.
Then no one "took your spot."
We’re going to be pushing 70 before our children have children, if they take the same path.
From what I read, the person worked their tush off to get through a graduate program, then pushed for more money in a career.
What aspect of this do you find privileging? Working their tush off? Pushing for opportunities?
A small set of comments online tells one nothing about the background of a person, unless one actively looks for dog whistles and shibboleths.
Assuming that they worked their tush off or pushed for opportunities also sounds coming from some privileged background, as it seems to assume that hard work and proper initiative would be sufficient in achieving such things, while for some people the first guard is already getting the necessary elementary education, while being in a stable and safe environment.
Rather than looking at your neighbor's privilege, it's better to introspect on our own and how we can use to for others.
Then why don't you tell that to the other guy who openly complained about a PhD time-shifting their life plans???
While a grad student is expected to be paid - they would need a 1 hour commute to afford the housing options around my rural alma matter.
Encouraging competition and unrestrained capitalism is typically considered a defacto conservative argument in the US. However the lines are blurry in different decades and in different countries.
The cost of practically every manufactured good and of food have been dropping for decades if not centuries. Average living space per person has likewise been getting for decades. Healthspan likewise.
In what sense has it become impractical not to be career focused? The average salary for a public high school teacher in NJ is $69K and the top $129K[1] while the average salary for a full professor in the NJ public university system is under $100K and the top is $174K[2] for the overwhelmingly dominant 9 month contracts. If you just want to get paid and you’re capable of doing a PhD you can just do a Master’s instead, in a much, much easier field and then do another job to get paid more.
[1] https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Master-Teacher-Salary-...
[2] https://www.univstats.com/salary/average-professor-salary-at...
Meanwhile, the median rent in NJ rose 14% in 2022 and have risen 4.1% YTD. To make a meaningful dent in our teachers housing costs, our teacher will need to make a 20% raise every year to get ahead of housing.
A grad student can sometimes avoid housing exposure due to institutional housing, but once they are out of institutional housing - they’ll be exposed to these price dynamics.
To me this says profoundly nothing that was not already known, but needed to be demonstrated in full view of as many participants as possible. To say the least, derailed, but does anyone know the purpose of this derailment? It can only be explained by a progressive in the most whimsical way possible.
Would you find it reasonable if someone judged whatever political ideology you identify with by the behavior of a few assholes? Trust me, I can find far worse examples of any ideology you can name than even the worst on display in this thread.
I haven't felt a need to do that since my defense around 2 decades ago. I don't think I've needed to flex that muscle today either, you're welcome to prove me wrong, but I don't really trust your judgement going by your standards today, maybe you should bring along one of your peers instead.
Think of age as a fine wine, not milk :)
It's been fairly flat for the last 10 years or so. [1][2]
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?location...
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Li...
The variance in quality of life after your 60s is crazy high. There are many super healthy 60yo, there are also 60yo who are completely devastated from health problems.
And sure maybe you can drag it on for another 5-10 years if you have let’s say Alzheimer’s, but what is the point ?
Getting people to take preventative measures is tough, but it's probably easier than reversing damage after it's done.
High blood pressure and preeclampsia
Gestational diabetes
Miscarriage or stillbirth
Labor problems that require you to have a C-section
Premature birth
Low birthweight
Chromosome disorders like Down syndromeBuying a house at 31 is not only "not-late" it's even pretty early these days!
As a result of my middling career path, I’ve become much more interested in family and hobbies, and I think to myself that I could have been doing those things several years sooner if not for the PhD
I was shocked when i found out he had just finished the PHD when i was graduating residency.
I have been feeling extreme boredom and dissatisfaction and was hoping pursuing medicine would give me some renewed passion.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, maybe consider other options such as trying to completely understand the root cause for your dissatisfaction and extreme boredom. Believe me, I know this isn't easy, but at this point I am at a loss for other options and feel like I must figure out exactly what causes me to feel like this in order to avoid having this happen a third time.
I am curious, what were you two careers?
In any case make sure you know what you are getting yourself into ( speak to medical colleagues ) as medicine has changed a lot in the last 5-10 years. I suspect in 10 more years medicine will be completely corporate run, as things are going now, small practices are being absorbed and being merged into larger and larger groups.
Also I agree with the sibling comments by Arch and snakes.
I remember taking courses alongside Master's students who were anecdotally less impressive than my fellow undergraduates. This experience (along with my dwindling pocketbook) helped dissuade me from staying the extra year or so, rather than immediately starting work.
Rather than spending an extra year getting a state school masters, you can also gain a year of ML work experience for a net positive six figures first year out of school. Which is more valuable?
Very different in the humanities.
Oh, but for comparison my degree was officially 9 semesters (most people used 10-12), so getting "just the BSc" was a) much shorter and b) not as ingrained as the default and then going the extra mile, the combo package was more like the full replacement for the old Diploma.
I was a TA and RA, didn't have to pay a dime for grad school, in fact got paid a livable salary, that was UC. No scholarships or anything special at all, just regular TA and RA work. Not sure how "typical" that is, but that money filter certainly did not exist when i was there.
Just a note that I jumped from academia to industry last century, and even then although my advisor and department (science) were horrified at the thought of aiming for anything less than a doctorate (masters? that's a consolation degree!), when I went to talk with the Dean (engineering) he gave me exactly the same advice: if you want a degree, get your company to pay for it.
That's a very broad generalization. Everybody has a different experience, depending on the field, their advisor, their lab, their skills, their personality and so on...
To me, a PhD was pretty much like any other job. The last couple of months were bit harder because of the final deadline, but nothing drastic when you're young. My current job in industry is more stressful overall.
What sucked for me was after the PhD, being an academic, but it's another story.
Many of those who "make it" and get those vaunted prestigious TT jobs are also desperately depressed in many cases (at least up through getting tenure, but even afterward the whole experience seems scarring). This seems to select for incredibly dedicated and usually quite intelligent, but also very obsessive and emotionally fragile people to finally make it through into permanent employment in academia. They then often have similar expectations for their grad students to do the same as they did, even if they claim on social media to be "caring" and such.
There are a couple ways of looking at this, yours is one take.
We can look at it another way. The kind of people with the intelligence and persistence to successfully complete a Ph.D. are disproportionately neurodivergent, IME. You’ll find a lot of people on the spectrum at the upper ranks of academia. Such people lack in dopamine production, and may end up taking medication to deal with that as they are diagnosed during the course of their graduate education, which typically provides access to healthcare and therapy.
I have a physics PhD. I had a good experience. My advisor really went to bat for me, and was supportive when it became apparent that I wasn't destined for a rockstar career, even though he was a rockstar himself in his subfield.
There is something about the "failure is not an option" experience that molds people for certain kinds of work. I still work on the same kinds of projects, albeit not in the same field. But I sincerely wish it didn't produce the human cost that it does. The risk is too great.
Noting a sister comment in the same thread, when I was in grad school, students had no access to healthcare or therapy.
It was a common sight for me to go sleep while he was still writing, wake up and see him still writing. He had a coffee, went to the farm, come back home, lecture at the university and went back to writing again. When he could, he went to São Paulo.
I went somewhat the same route. I finished my master degree but I gave up doctorate when I started to feel the impact it had in my health. Not only mentally but also physically.
My girlfriend is now also somewhat on the same route. Fortunately she will finish her doctorate soon and will still be alive, but I see many of the symptoms of my father in her.
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/risk-factors/stres...
In discussion the authors say "Moreover, we want to emphasize the likely sample bias in our data. We recruited participants mainly via mailing lists and our project therefore probably has especially appealed to people who are already interested in health or aware of mental health issues."
I guess this bias could be significant. I can't imagine that someone who is particularly stressed, depressed and sleep-deprived will pay attention to a mailing list message that has anything to do with mental health, or aks "How's your PhD going?". Personally, if I saw such email, I would close it and forget it as fast as I possibly could.
Another problem is that people tend to lie to themselves about their mental health issues, telling themselves that it's not too bad. They would answer the survey more optimistically, as if this makes the issues go away. It takes a good capacity of self reflection to see the problems clearly, and the loss of such capacity often accompanies other mental health problems.
Additionally, it takes a particularly trusing personality to discuss your health issues in a web survey. You never know how anonymous it all really is and where the collected data may end up eventually. I'm not sure how this correlates with mental health. The paranoid types will obviously be less trusting, but I guess a certain level of care when sharing your personal health data should be normal. In any case, this is another inevitable source of bias in survey-based data.
These points don't invalidate the study, just suggest that it probably underestimates the real prevalence of mental health issues.
I would counter that it may go in the other direction too. The other group of people who have little interest in the topic of mental health are those who are already doing really well. It's a non-problem for them, so why would they engage?
The Nature article and OP's article identify one culprit: poor supervision. I have a shit-list of awful supervisors that I try to steer potential students away from. Universities know that these people are awful but do nothing: in some cases I personally know, the Vice-Chancellor of the university and the toxic supervisors are best buddies.
Case in point: Alan Cooper, international ancient DNA expert, was fired after a long battle because he was so incredibly toxic. He just got hired by another university! https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02147-x
Academia has no interest in weeding out its most bad members. So I, and many others, left.
After 6 years in industry, I have a much more solid foundation and idea of what I want to focus on for the rest of my career. But at this point, getting a PhD is not remotely a possibility for numerous reasons.
It’s an interesting conundrum and I see a lot of PhDs who advise against getting one. But I will always have a small pang of jealousy towards those that have one.
I went back to do my PhD after more than 20 years in industry. Being an independent researcher gave me the freedom to pursue a topic that I saw a need for in industry. Of course, I'm biased by my experiences, but I do think we would make more practical contributions to industry if all PhD candidates had to gain industry experience before enrolling in their research program.
When I got here I realized the members of the lab are almost all petite white women. A common reason why they’re doing their PhD in this lab? The PI saw something in them and thought they were special when they were undergraduates.
To top it off, most of them are doing projects predetermined by the PI for their dissertation.
Goes without saying, I intend to work with another professor but still very disheartening to see.
Passion helps, but people's passion does change over time.
There's a huge amount to deciding your topic (and your PhD advisor) that needs to be decided on the ground.
> In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline."
> The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy.
But where I live (northern Spain), mainly in engineering, getting a PhD almost always ensures the opportunity for an academic tenure and a professor position. We are still growing our universities' numbers and new professors are needed every year.
Would I be paid triple what I get now outside academia for my expertise? Yeah. But teaching is my passion so that balances out. Maybe I'll get out for a few years after I change my credentials from Mr. to Dr., just so I can afford a house, but I will come back to academia no doubt.
To me though it feels like the very large majority of professors actually loathe teaching and would much rather be elsewhere, i.e. researching independently.
I guess I got through that grinder (only a little more than half of us did) in the end but now my experience is completely the opposite to what I’m seeing from others in this thread. Maybe it’s just that engineering is different.
He hated that question, but he had a perfect reason for a delay. At the end, his PhD took 7 years, and he said that wasn't bad. lol
Phd students need a union. The characteristics of the job very much need it.
Low pay. High switching cost. Success depends on a single person mostly (your prof).
Also, you have to vet your prospective PI's lab very carefully to make sure they're not a fraudster or a manipulative sociopath. Not as uncommon a situation as you might expect. You also might just end up working as someone's underpaid lab tech for six years and while you get the PhD at the end of it, nobody will ever even cite your research and you'll probably regret the experience (in industry, you might have been into a six-figure salary and well on your way career-wise by that point, while learning more real-work skills at the same time).
If you're doing it for vanity reasons or because it's expected best option is to bail on the whole thing and go get a job in industry, same if you find yourself in some crap lab run by a shyster PI. You can easily end up overworked, underpaid and with nothing much to show for it in the end.
His daughter committed suicide. As did a lover of his.
I certainly have dark spells. When I was younger, I coped by withdrawing. Now, in my 40s, leading teams executing missions, I can't withdraw, it's very much "Hello darkness, my old friend".
Charles Bukowski has become a favorite author. Typing question stems into Google is far more therapeutic than browsing social media. Talking with a friend is more helpful than a therapist. Exercise, similarly. Talking with a friend while riding a bike is positively curative.
Life sucks, then you die. Stop and smell the roses. Shadenfreude isn't all bad. Etc.
From these and my own experiences, the results of this study are not surprising but I'm happy to see some published work on it.
There are lots of toxic, stressful companies with poor leadership in competitive fields, but I wouldn't say that "industry is terrible choice" or some other sweeping generalization. People can leave a bad company and still find a great fit somewhere else, just as people can leave bad academic labs and join a better one en route to a successful career.
IME, most of the toxic traits ascribed to academics may be sufficient for success, but they are not necessary. There are highly successful academics who go against all the stereotypes of publish or perish, overwork, or poor management skills.
Where exactly are you pulling this from? That has not been my experience, both from my research lab and from other students I've met at a variety of conferences.
Again, why do you claim phd students are "not assertive" with "impaired cooperation skills"? Or is that just a personal judgement on your part?