I was recently reading Kathy Barker's At the Helm, and came across a great summary of why PhDs are difficult. According to Baker, unlike other degree programs such as law school, a PhD lacks structure. Does that not ring true? PhDs and sometimes Master's students, depending on the type of supervisor, will find themselves steering their own way, at times with the advice of their supervisors. In this post, I will cover some of the reasons why a PhD lacks structure, and why this lack of direction makes this degree difficult to finish.
PhDs lack guidance
The expectation from a student might be that they are learning from their advisor, but the reality is that they are completely responsible for their future. It's a bit like a crash course on life. The successful completion of the program depends on the success of experiments, which like life, can sometimes work out and sometimes not so much. There are usually no set points to guide yourself with, other than the sporadic (and sometimes dreaded) committee meeting. This of course is the case for life sciences PhDs. I cannot specifically speak for PhDs outside this area, but I suspect they can still be described by the words free-reign. For those who are not aware, committee meetings involve the supervisor, and two colleagues who might know aspects of the research being conducted by the student. They provide expertise and advice when the supervisor can't. They also act as a check for those supervisors that might be asking too much of students. But the supervisor is typically the one with the most power for making decisions affecting the student's degree.
Early on during my graduate studies, I was warned about the potential dangers of being given so much freedom (or no guidelines, potayto-potahto). A PhD student gave us a stern talk about students losing themselves because no one was managing them. In a way, it is true; as PhDs, or even sometimes as Master's students, we are typically thrown in a forest and told to find the way out. If you do not have an instinct or penchant for direction (organization in this analogy), you gotta find out fast how to do this; otherwise, you might find yourself spending years simply focusing just on the research but not necessarily knowing how to organize your research into publications, or even how to present it to future employers or advisors. I think it's fair mentioning that this might not be the case in every country. This has been what I have observed from friends and others in academia in North America.
Unrealistic expectations of the outcomes of the PhD degree from students, supervisors, departments and even universities
As a PhD, we spent most of our time focusing on the research, thinking that this is what will help us become better professors. However, nowadays, being a professor is quite difficult, and other jobs also depend on the development of many soft skills. Student are often unsure about what to pursue post-graduate school because:
There is often a lack of professional development to let students know which skills are required for which job, the types of jobs available, etc.
There is a rampant unawareness about paths outside of academia (neither advisors and even departments might explicitly know how to guide students with regards to this)
Little time is spent outside the lab to develop other skills.
Though science can be enjoyable, these factors affect graduate students and explain why graduate students dread the question, 'what are you doing after grad school?'
Lack of professional development for PhDs
Unlike other organizations, specifically big industry organizations, or government/public offices, which foster an environment in which training, and standard operating procedures are crucial for the survival of the institution, freedom and creativity are what is typically encouraged in the graduate world. However, no one said you can't be creative AND organized, and I'd be amazed if this is not costing the research community in productivity. If universities had compulsory management courses for their graduate students as part of their schooling, this would not only prepare them to be future professors, but also prepare them for the world outside academia.
In many universities, resources that involve task management do already exist, but often they are not compulsory and are offered by the main library services, which may be far away for many graduate students, who will choose not to take them. I've often wondered, if the government sees these academic institutions as potential brain tanks, then why not invest in them by pushing the universities to re-think their graduate education infrastructure to include a professional development stream like the University of Toronto recently implemented?
U of T also offers a full program on professional development for its students. It surprises me that I have to refer to the University of Toronto as a pioneer in this respect, when we're currently in 2018. Why haven't other universities pushed for this change? Why are there not more co-op based PhD program streams in universities? I've seen some push for action in universities like the University of Ottawa and University of Guelph, but nothing concrete as of this year, and often, it is put on the shoulders of PhD students, who may be asked to organize events by professors in the department. Perhaps, it would be unwise to request this from advisors who are already overworked, but maybe hiring someone to foresee a Professional Development program might be a great idea.
Lack of management training for PhD Supervisors
During my PhD, I created some initiatives that allowed me to work with others as part of a team. I learned through those activities that one person can't do everything, and sometimes it is all right to let others do certain jobs because it can complement your management. That is not typically the attitude in academia, where looking busy and immersed in research is the most common approach to management. I learned from my volunteering experience that asking for extra hands is never a bad idea, and an environment of cooperation fosters learning.
However, in the past I have encountered bosses that feared that asking students to take on extra tasks related to lab organization would be overwhelming. However, often students would show aptitude toward non-research related tasks. As an advisor, why would you not benefit from letting them try that task as long as it does not intervene with their research or academic work? I believe both of them would benefit. The student would gain soft skills they can add to their resume and the advisor gets a better functioning lab.
Another problem I observed throughout my graduate studies was that many supervisors do not allow students to TA. It is similar to that fear of not wanting to give students additional tasks that relate to management or writing. To discourage TAing, professors might suggest to students that they know their research productivity will suffer because the student will be overwhelmed with the burden of TAing. One of my friends' advisors bluntly told him that if he wanted to continue working for her, he could not take up TAing. He ended up lying to his advisor and saying that the TA work hours were actually many doctor appointments. His advisor still thinks he had some kind of autoimmune disorder. Interestingly, for students who are truly passionate about teaching and research, taking on TAing would be the first time when they're experiencing how to truly multitask.
Abuse of Power in Academia
However, advisors can also abuse their power and not offer the lab management as a job. The graduate student then essentially takes on two jobs, only one of which is covered by a scholarship or stipend. Verbally abusive behaviour can also happen. Supervisors have been known to blame the failures (which often happen in science) of an experiment on the students' skills to make them feel guilty and make them work harder. Non-attentive supervisors are far more common. I have friends whose advisors decided to leave institutions and did not continue to provide them with guidance.
There are regulatory bodies that currently try to solve these harassment and neglect problems. However, they often favour the advisor. One of my friends at the University of Waterloo told me that they had been visited by a regulatory body from Alberta. Students voiced some general concerns, and when he voiced his about his verbally abusive advisor, he was told his comments were confidential. Half an hour later, the same regulatory body toured the labs and when his supervisor introduced the lab, they chuckled and said, "oh, he went to the meeting this morning." This did not ease tensions between him and his advisor. The line between advisor and student when it comes to what's acceptable in the workplace is habitually blurred.
Finally, the saddest cases are those of advisors who have a history of sexual misconduct, and who are simply let go from universities without barely any press coverage or repercussion. Universities have started to get better at this by offering courses against sexual harassment, but the mentality of mutual respect needs to be strongly enforced. A previous academia employer scoffed at a recently introduced anti-harassment course by the university, and asked me if I would be weirded-out if he called me sexy. Sadly, this was the general attitude among employees in the department. I believe things like this can be fixed by offering professional development courses early on, and hiring additional personnel such as therapists, career counselors, and management professionals to help and guide both graduate students and principal investigators (advisors).
More educational tools and workshops should be offered and perhaps be implemented as part of the requirements for joining as an advisor or graduate student. Finally, a co-op system must be set in place to start networking for graduate students. Who knows? This might help strengthen industry-academia partnerships and foster innovation. The academia sector definitely needs reform. Unfortunately, at the moment, I think most of this reform must come from graduate students wishing to drive change by becoming involved in department committees, airing concerns to graduate unions, and organizing events through graduate associations for professional development. If you see an ally in a professor who's willing to change the system, try to brainstorm together ideas that might change policy at the university.
These thoughts are by no means a guide of what should be done, but do introduce concerns and ideas for potential solutions. For me, realizing these concerns was a way of understanding why this program was so much harder than I had initially expected. It made me feel less alone to voice these concerns with friends that were also pursuing graduate degrees. I still do find my PhD worthwhile despite the negatives.
Comments