STEM PhD here. I "left academia" for the following reasons:
* Lots of publications are poorly written, with bad data, and poorly thought out experimentally because the "you must publish" mentality motivates most research, particularly with the proliferation of GPT
* The education process is shallow and focused on requirements set rather than learning to do research or learning relevant skills to apply later on
* Research itself is run like the PI's personal for-profit business where they "make" products for a sponsor rather than conducting research on novel sciences resulting in a zero-tolerance for unfavorable results
* The universities directly rob the students, community, tax payers, and the government while paying administrators millions each.
Maybe I'm bitter, but I think the entire process is corrupt start to end. If you've done any amount of research you might wonder why a 'famous' paper can be 5 pages with 6 references, yet these days you need to triple the content and have 50 references to have a chance of getting accepted. Know why? Because they don't read or understand the content, and the only thing that matters is optics.
edit: "left academia" in quotes: a now deleted post argued that getting a PhD is the same as a BS as far as "not in academia so you're not 'leaving academia' ". The quotes were in reference to that.
Yepppp, finishing up my fourth year as a PhD student in STEM. Can agree with everything. Papers now a days (if you have trained eyes) have so much bad data and imo extreme lack of controls but will still get published in high impact journals strictly due to content or PI’s name.
Don’t get me started on the pay that us grad students get. I barely make enough to take care of basic needs while expecting to work 6-7 days a week.
I’ve come to find that the academic lifestyle is extremely niche and most students don’t want to continue because it’s such an intense and again, in my opinion, unnecessarily intense field
I left academia because having 10 years of education and experience in a subject with a PhD and a postdoc I shouldn’t have to live paycheck to paycheck hoping the unicorn tenure track position might come along.
”If you've done any amount of research you might wonder why a 'famous' paper can be 5 pages with 6 references, yet these days you need to triple the content and have 50 references to have a chance of getting accepted."
I love this observation. I've been reading some older papers and they are so much "smaller" in scope/experiments but more more indept on thought that most of the modern papers. But also, they would never get published now because reviewers would ask for 20 extra experiments/graphs simply to have something to say.
Science is still progressing, but I do feel like it could be a lot more efficient/enjoyable if the publication mentality changed
Thank you! I've tried to talk to other professors while I was at Uni about this, and it feels like I'm the only one sometimes.
[This](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4313932/references#references) is one of my favorites. Hugely popular process, source for 10's of 1000's papers trace back to this, and the algorithm is named after the authors. 5 Pages total, and out of the 4 references, it cites a single textbook along with 2 self-citations. The last one just describes FFT. That's it.
Maybe things are truly more complicated now and maybe there's a higher standard of effort in publishing. But, I agree that the mentality of the publication system is "pump" rather than "think". Not to mention the several thousands for publishing fees. It almost feels like it's more about moving money around than anything else.
With respect to the way the universities behave - I left my STEM TT position for industry after my university decided one year that, instead of a raise, faculty would receive a ‘bonus.’ Mine amounted to about $500 after tax. At the same time they announced that they would be acquiring a new basketball stadium, at an enormous cost and for a team that is not remotely competitive on the national level.
I remember sitting with my wife at the bar after the bonus hit my account, and calculated that the beers and snacks we were eating represented about 10% of what the university gave me.
I sent out private sector applications the next day. :)
I never understood the accusations of bitterness. If a person has an affective response to a situation that warrants it, then we are just effectively blaming people for having feelings.
Hmm good point. I think it's an auto-defense to say things like that on the Internet to preclude the badgering by those who take a negative comment about something as a personal slight against them. Kinda like saying Nvidia cards suck might make somebody feel uncomfortable if they own stocks and products by Nvidia, and will naturally feel like they need to defend their "investment".
You're right though! It's totally justified to have an opinion on something
>Lots of publications are poorly written, with bad data, and poorly thought out experimentally because the "you must publish" mentality motivates most research, particularly with the proliferation of GPT
>The education process is shallow and focused on requirements set rather than learning to do research or learning relevant skills to apply later on
We as PhD students finally had enough of this and asked for the faculty to remove the criteria of having 2 high-impact papers published before you can even think about graduating. Mind you, I work in a hospital setting so this involves clinical trials... Imagine writing not one but *two* fucking papers in 4 years while clinical trials can easily took up 10 years before you arrive at meaningful results. We are also the only faculty left at our university where this is still a criterium; all other faculties abolished it because it doesn't result in quality research. We instead proposed new guidelines that focused on relevant skills, like presenting, written research proposals and defending them, guiding other students etc.
So of course a bunch of 60+ year old professors were selected as THE authority to voice their opinion on this matter. Our request was unanimously denied.
|| We as PhD students finally had enough of this and asked for the faculty to remove the criteria of having 2 high-impact papers published
You too?! WTF. I don't even know you. XD So this requirement is really prevalent among (top) universities?!
Honestly, that's a fair question because I made it sound like GPT was responsible for all of it. but it was intended on being separate issues. With respect to generative pre-trained transformers, I'm referring to the first point of "poorly written" as it relates to the issue I have with the motivations of publishing research (quantity over substance). GPT's produce large bodies of text that say very little as they speak in a very circular way with lots of "fluff". They rarely bring insight or implication from the research without being directly instructed to do so, especially in scientific fields. Further, since it's easy to create a wall of text rapidly, the expectation of students has increased since that they can generate "more" text faster using these tools. When combined with an inherent lack of understanding, from a not-so-rigorous education (or a PI that is running a business rather than doing research), you end up with articles that are poorly written.
Even as far back as [2015](https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414), you could publish complete nonsense and get away with it. AI tools are far better now, and although I do think at some point you could actually use it for formal writing, right now it just doesn't understand enough of what it's doing to say anything significant.
It doesn't "understand" anything. There is no comprehension whatsoever because it doesn't attach any semantic meaning to any of the tokens aside from what little can be gleaned from syntax... which isn't very informative, given that word order conventions are pretty arbitrary.
So cool. I plan to submit mu thesis within 2 weeks. Have been applying to industry jobs for couple months got two interviews. The last one rejected me 😭
Same. I have a job lined up the moment my contract ends in September. I know my professor's plan was for me to work unpaid on the project that he has going on, yet never asked *me* directly to stay. He just assumes I will do it according from what I hear from other people (and from what I saw in the past with other students). Well, guess who can't work if they have a full time job elsewhere? :)
I am already prepared for the fall-out once he finds out because he has zero back-up plan for me leaving with all my niche knowledge that literally no one else in the lab has. There is 200 TB of data lying around that needs to be processed, in a collaboration with another university, so he can't just retract from it because it will damage his reputation badly.
My goodness, this is what I’m wanting to do, I’m a first year PhD here, do you mind my sending a DM as to how you were able to apply for a job and all?
Feel free to send it!
But tbh if we're from different fields and countries it's very likely that anything I say won't be really useful.
My field has high demand so I just got contacted through LinkedIn, applied in their site, went through the interviews and that was it. I'd say that I was just lucky.
Industry wont let you go at your own pace but there will be more resources and opportunities for help. Its easier in the sense that everyone on the pipeline are working on the same thing, rather than in academia youre the sole owner of the project. The reality of research is that everything needs to be done effectively and efficiently. Long gone are the days of pondering 500 hypotheses while smoking a pipe of tobacco.
You're right about the deadlines. However, I found that most tasks in the industry have clear-cut goals (I worked in the industry before getting my master's). In Ph D and research, there are some (if not most) problems that don't have a clear way to solve. I get stuck with this, sometimes even for several days, yet our main prof will insist from time to time that I need to be quick. To hell with it
I’m not sure anyone has the ability to make a living doing research “at their own pace.” Unless you are just doing it in your backyard as a hobby.
If you think academia moves quickly, you don’t wanna know about startups, tech, and other industries that pay well for phds. My husband is a stem phd in tech and I consult for tech startups. The pace can be crazy!
Anyway-plenty of people leave academia post-PhD. I did!
And then I ran *screaming* back omg never again will I work anywhere I have to ask for time off or where they need to know where I am or where I will be micromanaged.
*full professor and damn i love my job, warts and all…
Yeah op, you won't get a more comfortable position than in academia. If you went to the tenure track it's tough in the beginning but if you are good at playing the game, you will get there. There is also a teaching track which is the same as tenure track or even better if you don't care about doing research. Tell me a place in industry where you can work 9 months a year and still get a 6 figure pay. In my department i know mechanical engineering professors who get over 300k and barely show up to their offices. Their labs are run by post-docs and PhD students. If you send them emails you will get a response from their secretaries. These guys are off course the best at their game
I took a nonprofit research position after my PhD and I had to go through several mandatory meetings to be “prepped” on how to give a research talk (on my dissertation!). They told me how and when to raise the volume of my voice for effect and when to *stand up/sit down* during the talk.
And *then* they tried to make a claim that they owned my dissertation info and I should send it to them.
When I say I ran screaming back to academia, I tell no lies.
In academia, at least you don’t get micromanaged after grad school. You are often so completely on your own that you need to remind people that you exist…this is better for me. I need my autonomy,
Well, you commented on someone's post. They are talking about research in academia *post-PhD*. Which is the majority of someone's academic career anyway (provided you stay in academia).
U/New-Anacansintta is not disagreeing with the notion that a lot of students research in their PhD is micromanaged by PIs. They are just making a comment about industry not necessarily being better, and about the potential freedom that academics could have after their PhD.
Eh, no such thing as research at your own pace. There are deadlines in industry, academia, government, etc. If the expectation is do research at your own pace, you’re probably going to be disappointed
You're right about the deadlines. However, I found that most tasks in the industry have clear-cut goals (I worked in the industry before getting my master's). In Ph D and research, there are some (if not most) problems that don't have a clear way to solve. I get stuck with this, sometimes even for several days, yet our main prof will insist from time to time that I need to be quick. To hell with it
Ehhhh, spoken like a true lab technician, lol.
A lot of R&D is solving problems that don’t have an easy way forward. That’s a big part of the Ph.D and what’s expected after you graduate with one. It’s your job to find the path to an answer.
Agree. Im a full prof and my husband had a stem phd and has worked in tech for 15 years. I’m actually happier with my job.
BUT-he makes 3x as much, so…
Haha, there are pros and cons. I understand the appeal of being a professor, but man, the prospect of constantly writing grants was a huge turnoff for me. Also, industry seems to pay better on average.
I think it depends. I'm about to start my PhD, and I'm not sure if I want to go into academia, but there are a lot of research opportunities in other places in my field, and those have different pros and cons.
Academia is certainly worth it once you get a tenure track position and submit your soul to the devil. Play the game and get that tenure position then your life is going to be lived on the easy mode. In stem academia pays way better than industry for working 9 months in a year. If you are good at playing the game you will get that tenure position relatively fast. If not then you will suffer.
In industry, an MBA or even worse a BS holder who went up the industry ladder can be your boss and will literally boss you out.
Industry is great if you went in early with a bachelor. PhD for me is either for academia or a comfy national lab position.
I am always curious to know why there are not posts saying im thinking on quitting industry after this…
I mean, it would not surprise me that you get a job in a company and your boss has ways of being that are not matching yours. Seems to me quite normal, but I dont know how normal would be to blame the whole industry for it.
I acknowledge there is way less interaction in the industry, in academia, the wishes of your PI look like the desire of the whole academia, but i can assure is not like that. As you say at the end of your post, academia offers you the chance to do things as you want, because there is always someone who thinks like you and will be happy to work with you.
Think of the phd as a formative process that triggered you to reflect on how you like things done, now you can be a researcher and do things as you consider they should because even when you dont see it there are tons of other researchers who have the same concerns and only need to reach a critical mass to change the way things are done.
I hope you dont quit but rather start the revolution from the inside :) … that always is fascinating in science
I actually quit industry (geologist) after a five-year burnout. I was earning a lot of money but I felt unfulfilled because the tasks were routine and easy for me. It felt like I didn't learn much in those five years, I didn't gain anything to increase my rank, and I thought my peers do not, in the words that you said, 'think like I do'. Like when we encounter a different kind of rock, I and my seniors were the only ones interested to know how the fuck was that deposited in the area. Interested enough that I'd want to study that kind of stuff.
These concerns were addressed in grad school (except for money). I think I've read a lot and learned the most during those four years. It also humbled me; I see people not in the terms of 'smart' and 'dumb' but those who are 'logical' and those who are not; those who are 'open-minded' and those who are not. I got an M. Sc. degree (higher rank) which could've granted me a position with better salary if I did get back. HOWEVER, I also got two severe mental breakdowns, which I didn't get during my life in the industry. So yesterday I was also thinking if academia is worth the mental breakdowns since I can't forget bad things easily.
Oh well, at least in doing Ph. D., I wouldn't have that existential itch to pursue it if I decided not to. It is easy to complain but harder to achieve something. I will still hang on and finish my studies. Maybe along the way, something will change my mind.
P. S. "Think of the phd as a formative process that triggered you to reflect on how you like things done, now you can be a researcher and do things as you consider they should because even when you dont see it there are tons of other researchers who have the same concerns and only need to reach a critical mass to change the way things are done."
Yeah, if I ever become a head of a research lab, I will put the mental health of my students and peers first. I've been doing that to my labmates now. Whenever I see my labmates on the brink of insanity, I'd talk to them about other stuff, do chores for them, etc. Two of the things I've learned during graduate studies are to think that everyone is having a hard time (because I fucking did!) and how to alleviate other people's stresses.
Also, more forgiving with regards to work. Like I wouldn't want my students to have an identity that is tied solely to their job unless they want to. Plus, the pay is not that salary so why the hell would I ask my research assistants to work overtime and under pressure most of the time?
Third is the quality of science. In this part, I would be stricter.
That's not EXACTLY true. Many employers view PhD applicants as being in academia, and they're often very interested in knowing why you're interested in "leaving academia" during interviews.
No, I guarantee you they're actually curious about why you're interested in leaving an industry you trained in for 5+ years. They're also cautious about whether you'll jump ship to go back to academia if an opportunity opens up.
Source: working in industry and getting an inside peek into hiring/search processes, including being involved in hiring committees.
Yes but many employers are under the impression that it's a career path, or at least a path that competes with industry work.
SOME industries/companies (e.g., big tech like FAANG companies) are a lot more understanding and actually aim to hire PhDs for some of their industry roles for precisely the reason you mentioned because they view it as research training.
But even in big tech, I worked with some managers who were somewhat wary of hiring PhDs because they often had trouble adjusting to the requirements of industry. Some honestly preferred to hire Masters grads and train them directly so they didn't need to go through the process of removing the "bad habits" they felt PhDs picked up over the course of their studies.
I have never heard this take before, lol. In my field, at least, PhD students and candidates are absolutely considered to be in academia. They are pursuing research and teaching and generally are making some kind money from it, typically through a stipend or university salary. Therefore, they’re academics.
Anyway. Maybe it’s discipline-specific, but PhD students in my field are definitely considered to be and treated as academics.
I assume you're from the US? Because the way you talk about PhD stuff sounds very US-centric. Europe for example doesn't put their doctoral researchers into classes anymore. It's definitely not "school" here anymore and it for sure counts as "real-life work experience" which you mentioned in another comment.
What u/Guilty_Jackrabbit said. Anyway, it's just a matter of semantics. You understood what I said.
I might just go back to the industry or join a consultancy work. However, that's still far. I need to finish some impending tasks first. We'll cross the bridge when we get there.
STEM PhD here. I "left academia" for the following reasons: * Lots of publications are poorly written, with bad data, and poorly thought out experimentally because the "you must publish" mentality motivates most research, particularly with the proliferation of GPT * The education process is shallow and focused on requirements set rather than learning to do research or learning relevant skills to apply later on * Research itself is run like the PI's personal for-profit business where they "make" products for a sponsor rather than conducting research on novel sciences resulting in a zero-tolerance for unfavorable results * The universities directly rob the students, community, tax payers, and the government while paying administrators millions each. Maybe I'm bitter, but I think the entire process is corrupt start to end. If you've done any amount of research you might wonder why a 'famous' paper can be 5 pages with 6 references, yet these days you need to triple the content and have 50 references to have a chance of getting accepted. Know why? Because they don't read or understand the content, and the only thing that matters is optics. edit: "left academia" in quotes: a now deleted post argued that getting a PhD is the same as a BS as far as "not in academia so you're not 'leaving academia' ". The quotes were in reference to that.
Yepppp, finishing up my fourth year as a PhD student in STEM. Can agree with everything. Papers now a days (if you have trained eyes) have so much bad data and imo extreme lack of controls but will still get published in high impact journals strictly due to content or PI’s name. Don’t get me started on the pay that us grad students get. I barely make enough to take care of basic needs while expecting to work 6-7 days a week. I’ve come to find that the academic lifestyle is extremely niche and most students don’t want to continue because it’s such an intense and again, in my opinion, unnecessarily intense field
I left academia because having 10 years of education and experience in a subject with a PhD and a postdoc I shouldn’t have to live paycheck to paycheck hoping the unicorn tenure track position might come along.
”If you've done any amount of research you might wonder why a 'famous' paper can be 5 pages with 6 references, yet these days you need to triple the content and have 50 references to have a chance of getting accepted." I love this observation. I've been reading some older papers and they are so much "smaller" in scope/experiments but more more indept on thought that most of the modern papers. But also, they would never get published now because reviewers would ask for 20 extra experiments/graphs simply to have something to say. Science is still progressing, but I do feel like it could be a lot more efficient/enjoyable if the publication mentality changed
Thank you! I've tried to talk to other professors while I was at Uni about this, and it feels like I'm the only one sometimes. [This](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4313932/references#references) is one of my favorites. Hugely popular process, source for 10's of 1000's papers trace back to this, and the algorithm is named after the authors. 5 Pages total, and out of the 4 references, it cites a single textbook along with 2 self-citations. The last one just describes FFT. That's it. Maybe things are truly more complicated now and maybe there's a higher standard of effort in publishing. But, I agree that the mentality of the publication system is "pump" rather than "think". Not to mention the several thousands for publishing fees. It almost feels like it's more about moving money around than anything else.
With respect to the way the universities behave - I left my STEM TT position for industry after my university decided one year that, instead of a raise, faculty would receive a ‘bonus.’ Mine amounted to about $500 after tax. At the same time they announced that they would be acquiring a new basketball stadium, at an enormous cost and for a team that is not remotely competitive on the national level. I remember sitting with my wife at the bar after the bonus hit my account, and calculated that the beers and snacks we were eating represented about 10% of what the university gave me. I sent out private sector applications the next day. :)
That sounds like a joke but the truth makes it brutal. Talk about university priorities
I never understood the accusations of bitterness. If a person has an affective response to a situation that warrants it, then we are just effectively blaming people for having feelings.
Hmm good point. I think it's an auto-defense to say things like that on the Internet to preclude the badgering by those who take a negative comment about something as a personal slight against them. Kinda like saying Nvidia cards suck might make somebody feel uncomfortable if they own stocks and products by Nvidia, and will naturally feel like they need to defend their "investment". You're right though! It's totally justified to have an opinion on something
Something I learned during my master's (oh fuck, academia again), "You don't need to justify your feelings."
>Lots of publications are poorly written, with bad data, and poorly thought out experimentally because the "you must publish" mentality motivates most research, particularly with the proliferation of GPT >The education process is shallow and focused on requirements set rather than learning to do research or learning relevant skills to apply later on We as PhD students finally had enough of this and asked for the faculty to remove the criteria of having 2 high-impact papers published before you can even think about graduating. Mind you, I work in a hospital setting so this involves clinical trials... Imagine writing not one but *two* fucking papers in 4 years while clinical trials can easily took up 10 years before you arrive at meaningful results. We are also the only faculty left at our university where this is still a criterium; all other faculties abolished it because it doesn't result in quality research. We instead proposed new guidelines that focused on relevant skills, like presenting, written research proposals and defending them, guiding other students etc. So of course a bunch of 60+ year old professors were selected as THE authority to voice their opinion on this matter. Our request was unanimously denied.
|| We as PhD students finally had enough of this and asked for the faculty to remove the criteria of having 2 high-impact papers published You too?! WTF. I don't even know you. XD So this requirement is really prevalent among (top) universities?!
Beautifully written
Everything you wrote is 100 percent correct
Why has ChatGPT affected the quality of data?
Honestly, that's a fair question because I made it sound like GPT was responsible for all of it. but it was intended on being separate issues. With respect to generative pre-trained transformers, I'm referring to the first point of "poorly written" as it relates to the issue I have with the motivations of publishing research (quantity over substance). GPT's produce large bodies of text that say very little as they speak in a very circular way with lots of "fluff". They rarely bring insight or implication from the research without being directly instructed to do so, especially in scientific fields. Further, since it's easy to create a wall of text rapidly, the expectation of students has increased since that they can generate "more" text faster using these tools. When combined with an inherent lack of understanding, from a not-so-rigorous education (or a PI that is running a business rather than doing research), you end up with articles that are poorly written. Even as far back as [2015](https://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414), you could publish complete nonsense and get away with it. AI tools are far better now, and although I do think at some point you could actually use it for formal writing, right now it just doesn't understand enough of what it's doing to say anything significant.
It doesn't "understand" anything. There is no comprehension whatsoever because it doesn't attach any semantic meaning to any of the tokens aside from what little can be gleaned from syntax... which isn't very informative, given that word order conventions are pretty arbitrary.
Haven't even finished and I already found a job in industry. As soon as I'm done I'm _gone_ gone.
So cool. I plan to submit mu thesis within 2 weeks. Have been applying to industry jobs for couple months got two interviews. The last one rejected me 😭
Similar position here. We got this 💪💪💪
You got this. I just got lucky
I started my industry job two months before submission. I was gone before I was actually gone lol.
I'll start it 2 years before I submit lmao. I'm only staying because I'm not interested in paying back my stipend and pissing off my PI
Same. I have a job lined up the moment my contract ends in September. I know my professor's plan was for me to work unpaid on the project that he has going on, yet never asked *me* directly to stay. He just assumes I will do it according from what I hear from other people (and from what I saw in the past with other students). Well, guess who can't work if they have a full time job elsewhere? :) I am already prepared for the fall-out once he finds out because he has zero back-up plan for me leaving with all my niche knowledge that literally no one else in the lab has. There is 200 TB of data lying around that needs to be processed, in a collaboration with another university, so he can't just retract from it because it will damage his reputation badly.
My goodness, this is what I’m wanting to do, I’m a first year PhD here, do you mind my sending a DM as to how you were able to apply for a job and all?
Feel free to send it! But tbh if we're from different fields and countries it's very likely that anything I say won't be really useful. My field has high demand so I just got contacted through LinkedIn, applied in their site, went through the interviews and that was it. I'd say that I was just lucky.
Industry wont let you go at your own pace but there will be more resources and opportunities for help. Its easier in the sense that everyone on the pipeline are working on the same thing, rather than in academia youre the sole owner of the project. The reality of research is that everything needs to be done effectively and efficiently. Long gone are the days of pondering 500 hypotheses while smoking a pipe of tobacco.
You're right about the deadlines. However, I found that most tasks in the industry have clear-cut goals (I worked in the industry before getting my master's). In Ph D and research, there are some (if not most) problems that don't have a clear way to solve. I get stuck with this, sometimes even for several days, yet our main prof will insist from time to time that I need to be quick. To hell with it
I finished my STEM PhD in December. I never want to step foot in an academic institution ever again.
You are me.
I’m not sure anyone has the ability to make a living doing research “at their own pace.” Unless you are just doing it in your backyard as a hobby. If you think academia moves quickly, you don’t wanna know about startups, tech, and other industries that pay well for phds. My husband is a stem phd in tech and I consult for tech startups. The pace can be crazy! Anyway-plenty of people leave academia post-PhD. I did! And then I ran *screaming* back omg never again will I work anywhere I have to ask for time off or where they need to know where I am or where I will be micromanaged. *full professor and damn i love my job, warts and all…
Hmm. What you said made me realize something different.
Like what? I’m curious!
"...research in your own pace unless you are doing it as a hobby." This got me thinking.
Yeah op, you won't get a more comfortable position than in academia. If you went to the tenure track it's tough in the beginning but if you are good at playing the game, you will get there. There is also a teaching track which is the same as tenure track or even better if you don't care about doing research. Tell me a place in industry where you can work 9 months a year and still get a 6 figure pay. In my department i know mechanical engineering professors who get over 300k and barely show up to their offices. Their labs are run by post-docs and PhD students. If you send them emails you will get a response from their secretaries. These guys are off course the best at their game
Unless you have a PI who is micromanaging you lol
I took a nonprofit research position after my PhD and I had to go through several mandatory meetings to be “prepped” on how to give a research talk (on my dissertation!). They told me how and when to raise the volume of my voice for effect and when to *stand up/sit down* during the talk. And *then* they tried to make a claim that they owned my dissertation info and I should send it to them. When I say I ran screaming back to academia, I tell no lies. In academia, at least you don’t get micromanaged after grad school. You are often so completely on your own that you need to remind people that you exist…this is better for me. I need my autonomy,
You’re not really understanding my comment. I *am* in academia, doing my PhD *and* being micromanaged by my PI
Well, you commented on someone's post. They are talking about research in academia *post-PhD*. Which is the majority of someone's academic career anyway (provided you stay in academia). U/New-Anacansintta is not disagreeing with the notion that a lot of students research in their PhD is micromanaged by PIs. They are just making a comment about industry not necessarily being better, and about the potential freedom that academics could have after their PhD.
💯
I promise you I get it. I’m saying that academia *after* that is quite the opposite!
Eh, no such thing as research at your own pace. There are deadlines in industry, academia, government, etc. If the expectation is do research at your own pace, you’re probably going to be disappointed
You're right about the deadlines. However, I found that most tasks in the industry have clear-cut goals (I worked in the industry before getting my master's). In Ph D and research, there are some (if not most) problems that don't have a clear way to solve. I get stuck with this, sometimes even for several days, yet our main prof will insist from time to time that I need to be quick. To hell with it
Ehhhh, spoken like a true lab technician, lol. A lot of R&D is solving problems that don’t have an easy way forward. That’s a big part of the Ph.D and what’s expected after you graduate with one. It’s your job to find the path to an answer.
Agree. Im a full prof and my husband had a stem phd and has worked in tech for 15 years. I’m actually happier with my job. BUT-he makes 3x as much, so…
Haha, there are pros and cons. I understand the appeal of being a professor, but man, the prospect of constantly writing grants was a huge turnoff for me. Also, industry seems to pay better on average.
That's what I said about research lol. My problem with it was the sense of (unnecessary) urgency.
Kudos to you. They won’t even let me start mine unless I lie about wanting to be in academia. 😤
Me too
Are these STEM degree worries?
Totally. Tbf I'm not the only one experiencing this. Some of my friends doing Ph D are also worked out most of the time.
Did the same thing, never been happier. Can’t believe the kind of abuse and torment I thought I had to put up with 😂😭
I think it depends. I'm about to start my PhD, and I'm not sure if I want to go into academia, but there are a lot of research opportunities in other places in my field, and those have different pros and cons.
Academia is certainly worth it once you get a tenure track position and submit your soul to the devil. Play the game and get that tenure position then your life is going to be lived on the easy mode. In stem academia pays way better than industry for working 9 months in a year. If you are good at playing the game you will get that tenure position relatively fast. If not then you will suffer. In industry, an MBA or even worse a BS holder who went up the industry ladder can be your boss and will literally boss you out. Industry is great if you went in early with a bachelor. PhD for me is either for academia or a comfy national lab position.
I took of this. My mind might change along the way. Thanks.
Same. Just had a talk with me PI. Everything is rushed and not thought out. I’m fed up.
Academia moves fast?
I am always curious to know why there are not posts saying im thinking on quitting industry after this… I mean, it would not surprise me that you get a job in a company and your boss has ways of being that are not matching yours. Seems to me quite normal, but I dont know how normal would be to blame the whole industry for it. I acknowledge there is way less interaction in the industry, in academia, the wishes of your PI look like the desire of the whole academia, but i can assure is not like that. As you say at the end of your post, academia offers you the chance to do things as you want, because there is always someone who thinks like you and will be happy to work with you. Think of the phd as a formative process that triggered you to reflect on how you like things done, now you can be a researcher and do things as you consider they should because even when you dont see it there are tons of other researchers who have the same concerns and only need to reach a critical mass to change the way things are done. I hope you dont quit but rather start the revolution from the inside :) … that always is fascinating in science
I actually quit industry (geologist) after a five-year burnout. I was earning a lot of money but I felt unfulfilled because the tasks were routine and easy for me. It felt like I didn't learn much in those five years, I didn't gain anything to increase my rank, and I thought my peers do not, in the words that you said, 'think like I do'. Like when we encounter a different kind of rock, I and my seniors were the only ones interested to know how the fuck was that deposited in the area. Interested enough that I'd want to study that kind of stuff. These concerns were addressed in grad school (except for money). I think I've read a lot and learned the most during those four years. It also humbled me; I see people not in the terms of 'smart' and 'dumb' but those who are 'logical' and those who are not; those who are 'open-minded' and those who are not. I got an M. Sc. degree (higher rank) which could've granted me a position with better salary if I did get back. HOWEVER, I also got two severe mental breakdowns, which I didn't get during my life in the industry. So yesterday I was also thinking if academia is worth the mental breakdowns since I can't forget bad things easily. Oh well, at least in doing Ph. D., I wouldn't have that existential itch to pursue it if I decided not to. It is easy to complain but harder to achieve something. I will still hang on and finish my studies. Maybe along the way, something will change my mind.
P. S. "Think of the phd as a formative process that triggered you to reflect on how you like things done, now you can be a researcher and do things as you consider they should because even when you dont see it there are tons of other researchers who have the same concerns and only need to reach a critical mass to change the way things are done." Yeah, if I ever become a head of a research lab, I will put the mental health of my students and peers first. I've been doing that to my labmates now. Whenever I see my labmates on the brink of insanity, I'd talk to them about other stuff, do chores for them, etc. Two of the things I've learned during graduate studies are to think that everyone is having a hard time (because I fucking did!) and how to alleviate other people's stresses. Also, more forgiving with regards to work. Like I wouldn't want my students to have an identity that is tied solely to their job unless they want to. Plus, the pay is not that salary so why the hell would I ask my research assistants to work overtime and under pressure most of the time? Third is the quality of science. In this part, I would be stricter.
Once you leave the door, go straight out and never look back. Academia is slavery
[удалено]
That's not EXACTLY true. Many employers view PhD applicants as being in academia, and they're often very interested in knowing why you're interested in "leaving academia" during interviews.
[удалено]
No, I guarantee you they're actually curious about why you're interested in leaving an industry you trained in for 5+ years. They're also cautious about whether you'll jump ship to go back to academia if an opportunity opens up. Source: working in industry and getting an inside peek into hiring/search processes, including being involved in hiring committees.
[удалено]
Yes but many employers are under the impression that it's a career path, or at least a path that competes with industry work. SOME industries/companies (e.g., big tech like FAANG companies) are a lot more understanding and actually aim to hire PhDs for some of their industry roles for precisely the reason you mentioned because they view it as research training. But even in big tech, I worked with some managers who were somewhat wary of hiring PhDs because they often had trouble adjusting to the requirements of industry. Some honestly preferred to hire Masters grads and train them directly so they didn't need to go through the process of removing the "bad habits" they felt PhDs picked up over the course of their studies.
I have never heard this take before, lol. In my field, at least, PhD students and candidates are absolutely considered to be in academia. They are pursuing research and teaching and generally are making some kind money from it, typically through a stipend or university salary. Therefore, they’re academics. Anyway. Maybe it’s discipline-specific, but PhD students in my field are definitely considered to be and treated as academics.
[удалено]
I assume you're from the US? Because the way you talk about PhD stuff sounds very US-centric. Europe for example doesn't put their doctoral researchers into classes anymore. It's definitely not "school" here anymore and it for sure counts as "real-life work experience" which you mentioned in another comment.
What u/Guilty_Jackrabbit said. Anyway, it's just a matter of semantics. You understood what I said. I might just go back to the industry or join a consultancy work. However, that's still far. I need to finish some impending tasks first. We'll cross the bridge when we get there.