5 ms·

There are definitely bullying, abusive people out there in academia (just as there are in industry too). I think the references thing you mention is one reason

by zamfi 4y ago

There are definitely bullying, abusive people out there in academia (just as there are in industry too). I think the references thing you mention is one reason why so many people seem to put up with it. But there are also very many extremely caring, dedicated people in academia, who love mentoring and building up their students and postdocs. One major challenge, especially in STEM, is that the main way to tell the abusive apart from the supportive is through watercooler/gossip networks -- but so many young college graduates in STEM fields find gossiping distasteful, or don't see the nature of the mentor/mentee relationship as being super critical, or feel awkward asking lab members what they think when they visit, or don't feel like they have the social capital to spend asking, or just plain worry that the question itself will speak poorly of them -- and as a result they often don't find out what they're in for until they're in it and it's too late to extricate. Committing to work for someone for 5 years is a huge deal, and you should be pretty sure you'll have a good working relationship before you start!

arghnoname 4y ago
Gossip is pretty tough to get a read on though. What one person might read as extremely overbearing might not be a problem to another student who is very driven and less sensitive. I've seen some real awful people who shouldn't be inflicted on anyone first-hand, but I've seen some that are a bit misunderstood because they're maybe a little brusque and aren't good advisors for everyone, but can be great mentors to the right person. Simple, more relatable example: the professor whose class gets very bimodal reviews--amazing, learn a lot, or unfair, too hard, etc. So these things are subjective and I worry in this climate doing things reputationally isn't the right approach. I prefer subordinates be empowered to push back against PIs and switch, at least have a level of freedom more similar to a regular job market where if someone is too awful, at least they won't be able to keep students and post-docs. I don't know how to accomplish this though, it's a very hard problem.
- zamfi 4y ago
  Sure, I think everyone but the bullies would prefer your second approach. In the meantime, though, reputation is kind of all you have. I’ll add though that if your gossip network is only giving you “overbearing/not” signal that’s petty weak tea. In my experience recent phd students of an advisor are typically happy to give an honest off-the-record take, that includes how driven you need to be, what to bring to meetings for them to be productive, etc etc. Each student will bring their own perspective and experiences, and may not be well connected to others’ (eg, a male student might not know that years ago his advisor’s last female student suffered harassment). But ask a few of them and you’ll have a lot more data than you started with. Also critical is to ask whoever is writing you a letter to begin with — especially if senior, they will often have useful perspective on potential advisors.

by zamfi 4y ago

arghnoname 4y ago

Gossip is pretty tough to get a read on though. What one person might read as extremely overbearing might not be a problem to another student who is very driven and less sensitive. I've seen some real awful people who shouldn't be inflicted on anyone first-hand, but I've seen some that are a bit misunderstood because they're maybe a little brusque and aren't good advisors for everyone, but can be great mentors to the right person. Simple, more relatable example: the professor whose class gets very bimodal reviews--amazing, learn a lot, or unfair, too hard, etc. So these things are subjective and I worry in this climate doing things reputationally isn't the right approach. I prefer subordinates be empowered to push back against PIs and switch, at least have a level of freedom more similar to a regular job market where if someone is too awful, at least they won't be able to keep students and post-docs. I don't know how to accomplish this though, it's a very hard problem.

zamfi 4y ago
Sure, I think everyone but the bullies would prefer your second approach. In the meantime, though, reputation is kind of all you have. I’ll add though that if your gossip network is only giving you “overbearing/not” signal that’s petty weak tea. In my experience recent phd students of an advisor are typically happy to give an honest off-the-record take, that includes how driven you need to be, what to bring to meetings for them to be productive, etc etc. Each student will bring their own perspective and experiences, and may not be well connected to others’ (eg, a male student might not know that years ago his advisor’s last female student suffered harassment). But ask a few of them and you’ll have a lot more data than you started with. Also critical is to ask whoever is writing you a letter to begin with — especially if senior, they will often have useful perspective on potential advisors.