bad phd students

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Of monsters and mentors: PhD disasters, and how to avoid them

Despite all that’s been done to improve doctoral study, horror stories keep coming. here three students relate phd nightmares while two academics advise on how to ensure a successful supervision.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

For all the efforts in recent years to improve the doctoral experience for students, Times Higher Education still receives a steady supply of horror stories from PhD candidates. To the authors of such submissions, the system appears, at best, indifferent to them and, at worst, outright exploitative. Here, we present three such examples – all of whose writers, tellingly, feel the need to remain anonymous, given the power dynamics involved.

Perhaps such tales are inevitable. Perhaps, even with the best will in the world, there will always be supervisor-supervisee relationships that just don’t function; expectations that, however heartfelt, just aren’t realistic; supervisors who just can’t find the time to give the kind of detailed supervision that they would like to give, and that students feel they need.

But perhaps there is still more that could be done to ensure that this most intense and crucial of academic relationships doesn’t end up on the rocks. In that spirit, two academics with strong views on the matter – one from science and one from the humanities – set out how they think the supervisory task should best be approached. Their guidance may not amount to a stake through the heart of the PhD horror franchise: as B-movie history amply demonstrates, good advice is not always heeded. But the exposure of the problems to further sunlight may at least slow the drip-drip of blood on to the doctoral carpet.

I had never felt so helpless in my life. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up

When I was offered a fully funded doctorate in a UK environmental science laboratory, I was delighted and accepted instantly. I assumed that the experience of working in an international environment and the many transferable skills that I would learn would be a stepping stone to an exciting career beyond the academy. Little did I know that what I had signed up for would destroy not only my career plans but also my passion for the subject, my ambition and my self-confidence.

My supervisors turned out to have limited knowledge of the topic that they had so glamorously advertised, and the university lacked the facilities and machinery that I needed. Left with precious little guidance, I was obliged to work with methods that would do very little to enhance my career. An obvious solution was to set up an external collaboration, but my supervisors were reluctant to sanction it. They didn’t seem to want to share the glory with anyone else, but the environment that they created meant that there was never likely to be much glory to share anyway.

It didn’t help, either, that I am female. My male supervisors, in a male-dominated field, constantly made belittling remarks that they would never have made to a male student, remarks that led me to doubt my own capabilities. My doctorate became a living nightmare, and, after a year of ineffectively trying to solve the issues directly with my supervisors, I decided to take things further.

Because the head of my department had just resigned, I sought help from the university’s students’ union. But joint meetings with a union representative and my supervisors seemed to go nowhere, culminating in accusations that I was “making up” the issues. The union subsequently managed to arrange a meeting with the head of the graduate school, but, nearly six weeks after our meeting, he deemed my case too complex and I was ultimately told to solve my issues with my supervisors directly!

I had never felt so helpless in my life, and I was amazed at how unconcerned the university apparently was about student well-being. After months of more meetings with my supervisors and the union, I was contacted by the departmental postgraduate tutor, who expressed “concern” about my progress. This offered me a ray of hope. However, as usual, things got worse rather than better. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up. I was offered an additional female supervisor, but, while welcome, that would have done little to solve the other issues.

I was given an ultimatum. I had two weeks to decide if I wanted to continue with my PhD and “accept” things as they were. The alternative was to leave – without any form of diploma or certificate for my two years of work (which included the publication of a first-author paper).

My last throw of the dice was to contact my funding body. However, my entire funding had already been transferred to my university, so there was little that it could do to help me. Thus I had no other choice but to quit and to watch as the university swept my case under the carpet, documenting my withdrawal as the result of “personal and health issues”.

Although the experience has cost me a lot, it also taught me a considerable amount. I learned to be wary of offers that seem too good to be true. I learned not to take my rights for granted. I learned the value of having expectations, commitments and offers put down in writing. I learned to trust no one.

I also learned a lot about how higher education institutions function. I discovered that they will do whatever it takes to cover up their own mishaps to save their reputation, even if it comes at the cost of destroying a young person’s career.

Anecdotally, cases similar to mine are becoming increasingly common. In recent months, there have been multiple ongoing cases at my former university, including more withdrawals. However, the university just recruits more students to make up for the losses.

It is well known that PhD students are widely seen by academics as a cheap workforce. But to be treated with such little respect by the people who are supposed to foster your career and help you to succeed is just not right in any workplace.

The author prefers to remain anonymous.

If you want to supervise and mentor with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department

The power that you as a supervisor have over a student or postdoc is immense. Your actions, whether they are kindnesses, temper tantrums or intimacies, have the potential to shake up trainees to a much greater degree than their actions can affect you. And, most of the time, trainees have no way to solve conflicts with you if you won’t negotiate. Hence, it is your responsibility not to abuse your power.

But it takes integrity and clarity not to do so. Doctoral supervision is challenging. Your first difficulty is in acknowledging and getting beyond unrealistic expectations of your students that you might not even know you have. In science, new supervisors often imagine a lab filled with idealised workers: miniature versions of themselves, who churn out data and submit manuscripts. So when their charges don’t do exactly what they expect, they feel frustrated.

You might also observe that other supervisors allow their people to flounder, or even to fail. And even though you don’t want that, you have never had the lessons in personnel management that might ensure it doesn’t happen. Academic departments and institutions may or may not provide support to guide supervisors and students in building effective relationships.

If you want to supervise and mentor students with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department. Nor can you assume, as a scientist, that your research group will passively absorb your good intentions. You must consider what you haven’t been trained in graduate school to consider: your own ethics, morals and sense of justice. Accept what institutional help exists, but if the policies at your institution render trainees expendable, you must develop the courage to stand up to power.

And then you build a framework for your students in which your ethics, rules and expectations are clear. For example, if you want your people to know that you are concerned with their professional futures, don’t let them drift without guidance. Evaluate each person regularly, and give feedback and compassionate criticism – not just on results but also on communication skills, presentation skills, time management and other characteristics of a successful professional. Keep notes on your meetings and follow up on what you and the trainee have discussed. Check in frequently and provide multiple opportunities for discussion and interaction. Be present.

Authorship and project choice are other vital areas where your policies can reflect your intentions to have a collaborative rather than a competitive climate. How are projects chosen? Do you actively foster collaboration, putting new people to work with more established lab members in a way that both parties benefit from, and will you continue to guide and monitor those collaborations? Do you intend to compete with your own trainees when they leave, or will you allow them to take their projects with them? Who writes the papers? How is authorship decided? Will you protect your people in authorship disputes with collaborating groups, or will you sacrifice a trainee to keep last authorship for yourself?

Create a group manual, with protocols, policy and helpful information, being specific about whatever you consider to be important for students to know. Include information about where trainees can find help if they have a personal or project issue – including problems with you.

You also need to be prepared to deal with the inevitable conflicts between lab members. Learn not to fear it, as that fear can mould you into a little dictator and keep you from understanding what people need. Have a process to work through conflicts (look up “interest-based conflict resolution”), as fair process often carries more weight with people even than achieving the outcome they wanted. Explain that process to your students, too: conflict resolution is one of the most valuable skills you can pass on. Don’t run from emotions – research is an emotional business – but learn to control your own emotional responses so that they don’t interfere with your communications.

Talk about ethical behaviour, and model that behaviour. If you expect your people to meet deadlines, you should be on time for meetings and return manuscripts and phone calls predictably. If you hear someone making a racist or sexist remark, correct the person: doing nothing will send the message that such behaviour is OK by you.

It is also important not to let yourself, or anyone else, become isolated. Make a point of introducing your students to your former students and postdocs – as well as to experts in their fields – when they visit or when you encounter them at meetings. Model the value of mentors by having mentors yourself, for personal and professional advice. Have the confidence to encourage trainees to have other role models and mentors, especially if they move into a project area in which you aren’t expert: having mentors is the start of building a web of relationships that will support trainees all through their lives.

But students must also be activists. Some supervisors eat their young, and some institutions allow it. As a student, you have the greatest level of control before you accept a position, so look for a place where you are respected and can do the work that you believe in. Ask other students questions about the scholarship and mentorship of particular supervisors before you make the decision to sign on. Once there, find role models, and get to know your community. The more you are integrated with others, the more people there are to help should your relationship with your supervisor or your project go badly.

It is unfortunate and unfair that students are not always protected, and that leaving might be the only solution to a toxic situation, but that is the harsh reality. So, as a student, doing all that you can to ensure that you will be appreciated and fulfilled in the position you accept is worth the effort.

Kathleen Barker is clinical assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health. She is the author of At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press).

PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported

Tom sent his supervisor a chapter of his PhD thesis to read six weeks ago. He can’t start on the next chapter until he receives feedback on what he has already done. But he has had no response despite chasing up his supervisor – with whom he gets on well personally – several times. Indeed, he has not even received an acknowledgement of his email. And he knows that when he does finally receive a reply, there will be no mention of the delay, let alone an apology. He knows that because this has all happened before.

But this time the situation plays out even more egregiously. After Tom has waited for two more weeks, he finally hears back – a full two months after his initial email. But his supervisor has checked only the first two pages and the last page of his chapter, ignoring everything between.

Tom is frustrated, but he thanks his supervisor for the feedback and does not challenge her over the delay. How can he when he is entirely dependent on her to get him through the PhD submission process and to supply a good reference for subsequent job applications? Besides, sustaining a complaint would come down to his word against hers – and she is senior and well respected in the department and the university. No one would believe him. And even if they did, would it really be worth the hassle of getting another supervisor allocated to him in his final year – and, in the process, acquiring a bad reputation in the department for being the one who “made a fuss”?

So Tom soldiers on. Eventually, after much delay, he finishes his thesis. But is it ready for submission? He points out to his supervisor that he does not believe that the thesis has been checked properly, but she tells him to stop worrying, to take responsibility for his work and to be confident in its quality and in his ability to defend it. So he takes the plunge and submits. But he spends the next two months worrying that he might fail, rendering the past four years of hard work a complete waste of time.

This is a true story. And it takes only a few cursory searches of online PhD forums to see how common such scenarios are. PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported. Hence, even the most toxic student-supervisor relationships often persist long beyond the point of dysfunctionality, sometimes leaving the student with mental health problems.

I believe that this happens primarily because supervisors’ responsibilities are rarely clearly defined and because supervisors are not accountable to anyone for carrying them out. So I make the following recommendations:

• Training for supervisors must be compulsory
• Supervisors must be held accountable to someone senior in the department, and PhD students should be made aware of who that is
• Supervisors must be required to respond to their PhD students’ emails within three days, barring any type of leave
• Supervisors’ responsibilities need to be outlined clearly in a handbook that is available to both supervisors and students. It should also be made clear to students how much of their supervisors’ time each week or month is allocated to giving them feedback so that they are not made to feel like a burden
• Students must be assigned a mentor who is not close to their supervisor or in the same research team – ideally in another department altogether. This person can help to alleviate concerns and act as an intermediary when necessary
• There should be an anonymous procedure within each department that PhD students can use to complain or give feedback about their supervisor
• Supervisors should be formally encouraged to ask their students annually how they could better support them. This should be part of supervisors’ yearly appraisals.

In the absence of such steps, such stories as the one above will continue to write themselves over and over again.

If a relationship works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. Supervising PhDs, I have been directed along paths that I would not have discovered otherwise

There is no doubt in my mind that the best part of being an academic over the years has been supervising PhD students. I cannot remember how many I have supervised, but the number runs to well over 80, and I have examined even more than that.

I am still in touch with many former students and examinees, and have been delighted to follow their careers wherever they are in the world. If a relationship between supervisor and postgraduate works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. I have learned so much from supervising PhDs, and have been directed along new paths that I would not have discovered otherwise. There have been occasions when a student would arrive in my office with a bag full of books that he or she felt I should read: a living demonstration of the fact that it is not always the supervisor who provides all the bibliographical information.

I always start by telling students three things: that I will read every word they write in draft and then in final copy; that if they can get me to approve the thesis, given how tough I am going to be with them, then they have a very good chance of getting it past the examiners; and that they should not be discouraged if they find that their work is shifting direction after a few months. Writing a humanities PhD is an organic process, and if ideas have not started to develop by the end of the first year, then something is going wrong. Supervisors are particularly important at this stage, to provide reassurance and to help the student move forward.

Supervising PhDs is rewarding because you can see the process of intellectual development unfolding before your eyes. But it is also an intensely time-consuming task. All the various calculations of hourly allocation for supervision are absurd: if you are going to supervise properly, then you have to be prepared to spend hours reading drafts and then talking to the student.

There are some supervisors who do not write anything on drafts, preferring to correct only a final version. I find this ridiculously unhelpful. The whole point of reading drafts is to give proper feedback, and in the case of international students this kind of detailed reading is essential. Academic writing courses help, but careful editing by a supervisor is vital.

Nor should a supervisor’s detailed corrections focus on content alone. They also need to address spelling, punctuation, style and structure. Sometimes I have proposed radical structural changes, such as moving material from a conclusion into the introduction and vice versa. Such suggestions can be responsibly made only after you do a final read-through of the whole thesis – and that final reading is essential because although you may have read individual chapters or sections over several years, only the student will have a clear idea of how they want it to fit together.

It is also important to provide a written summary of general points after reading each draft. I learned early on that trying to do this verbally does not work because a student is often anxious and so does not take everything in. An email with bullet points works best. It is also important to balance criticism with praise, so the summary should start out with something positive before moving on to the “however” part. But all criticism, however negative, should be presented in such a way as to offer solutions and to help the student with the next stage in writing.

One of the problems facing supervisors in the UK is that the hours they put in are never adequately acknowledged by university management. This is because the UK has had to try to catch up with the kind of structure for doctorates that operates in US universities, and often PhD students have been tagged on as extras to someone’s academic workload. In the humanities, there have also been (and remain) some curious ideas about the need for a supervisor to be a “specialist” in exactly the same area as the student. Not only can this impose undue pressures on specialists in popular fields, it is also conceptually misconceived. Supervision should take both student and supervisor down relatively unexplored paths.

When it comes to choosing an examiner, practices vary widely. I have heard colleagues state firmly that the student should have no input, but I consult with mine because it is important to find out whether they have been in contact with any potential examiners. Also, despite clear guidelines, some universities still do not appoint anyone to chair the viva, which means that if a student feels hard done by, there is no independent witness. That only makes the choice of examiner even more important.

I don’t understand why supervising PhDs should be seen as a chore, rather than as a unique opportunity to engage with the brightest minds of younger generations. My research would be so much poorer without the help that I have received, directly and indirectly, from my doctoral students.

Susan Bassnett is professor of comparative literature at the universities of Warwick and Glasgow.

The degree was not awarded. Yet years later I discovered evidence that the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

Some students cheat. That’s clear from numerous articles in the press. But is this a one-sided view? How often is the examiner’s performance questioned or subjected to independent scrutiny? For postgraduates in particular, this is no trivial matter: any bias or lack of honesty in an examiner can waste years of the candidate’s life and can degrade trust in the system.

My experience may not be typical, but it’s certainly an eye-opener for any postgraduate who assumes that the viva examination will be automatically fair and above board.

After an MSc, I completed four years of doctoral research at a major UK university. The results were formally approved by the relevant research council and were published as a series of seven papers in major, peer-reviewed journals.

Before the viva, I’d queried the choice of examiners, owing to perceived bias, but was overruled.

The degree was not awarded: the examiners claimed that none of my seven papers had deserved publication – even though they had satisfied a total of 14 independent referees. The examiners had decided all 14 were wrong.

So what did I do? I got on with my life. Years later, though, I discovered that my papers are cited in the examiners’ own publications: that is, the examiners had used them as valid references to support their own work. Incredibly, some of these papers had been referenced before my viva. Clearly, this was perverse, dishonest and highly unprofessional conduct: the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

I sent it five of the examiners’ publications that cite my papers, together with a copy of the examiners’ signed report. I asked for acknowledgement that the viva had been biased. But the university declined to comment; it said the complaint was “out of time”.

Where there is evidence of malpractice, it should not matter when the viva was held: bias was deliberate and obvious, and the university could have followed up. Hiding behind process is a deeply inadequate response to such a blatant and egregious case. Nowadays, so-called historic cases of injustice and abuse, some from many decades ago, are being recognised and investigated. So why is corruption in education treated differently?

Examinations might be more equitable if, before the viva, candidates were officially entitled to raise concerns about their examiners – any concerns being addressed independently of the college or university. Such adjudication might seldom be needed, but it should still be in place. Examiners, after all, are people. And people – from students to presidents – do not always possess the levels of integrity and honesty that we naively expect of them.

Candidates should not be expected to accept a particular examiner if they can offer valid reasons for not doing so. And any university that seeks to impose a disputed examiner should be asked to reconsider its definition of fair play. 

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

PhDs: ‘toxic’ supervisors and ‘students from hell’

How should universities handle breakdowns in PhD student-supervisor relationships?

Reader's comments (11)

You might also like.

Three years after I escaped Kabul my UK university dream has come true

Refugee student Naweed Zafary recalls harrowing scenes as the Taliban took power and thousands fought for places on the last flights out of Afghanistan

Exposure of student ‘drug ring’ sparks Korean soul-searching

Apparent rise in drug use among South Korean students raises questions about high-pressure academic culture

Years on edge, no cigar: the lot of foreign doctoral applicants

After waiting years for their visas, Australia-bound PhD candidates find that their university places have evaporated

Five Truths About Graduate School That Nobody Tells You

The importance of shifting from the "student" to the "professional" mentality..

Posted October 28, 2013 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

• What Is a Career
• Take our Procrastination Test
• Find a career counselor near me

There are some crucial things to know about graduate school that are not typically discussed out in the open, but that could make all the difference for you (or for your graduate students). It ultimately boils down to this: The ultimate key to graduate school is transitioning from a “student” mentality to a “professional” mentality. Having published 23 articles in research journals before graduating, I think I successfully made this change of mindset and I can help you to do so, as well. Here are five important truths to assist you in making this transition.

Truth #1: Graduate School Is Not School at All, but an Apprenticeship.

The term “school” makes you think that the most important aspect of this experience is class and that you are a student who must do well in the class. However, your goal is not to get straight As, but to learn to become a productive, independent researcher. A more fitting term for graduate school would be “professorial apprenticeship.” The apprenticeship system was first developed in the later middle ages to help novice tradesman to learn a skilled vocation (such as carpentry) from a master teacher. This is the true purpose of graduate school, to learn the trade (publishing) by doing the trade, not by simply reading about it and talking about it in classes. If you were the manager of a large furniture manufacturer looking to hire someone, would you be more interested in applicants who had read a lot about building furniture, knew all the theory behind it, etc., or would you like to hire someone who had already built several pieces under the hands of a master teacher?

Truth #2: Your Career Starts on Your First Day of Graduate School

People with the “student” mentality think that their career begins when they get the coveted tenure-track position and they procrastinate seriously doing the research job that they’ve been hired to do. Those with the “professional” mentality recognize that everything they do as a graduate student counts towards their overall record and they begin to work on publications immediately. They show up every day ready to work on their job of publishing rather than spending most of their time preparing for their enhancement workshops (class). They know what the priority is and their time allocation reflects this. An important facet of this recognition is to not be limited by the clock. Those with the “student” mentality work until their assigned 10 or 20 research assistantship hours are complete, whereas those with the “professional” mentality know that any additional time they spend on this core task will be “counted” toward getting a job and future advancement and so they do not limit themselves to time for which they are being paid. I often put in two to three times the hours that I was paid for and believe me it paid off. Think of yourself not as a student logging in some hours, but as a salaried professional working toward a promotion.

Truth #3: Grades Don’t Really Matte

As an undergraduate, I was a grade-grubber. I would study long hours and then show up to office hours to demonstrate to the professor why my answer on the test should get partial credit so that I could get an A rather than an A-. That was important back then, but it sure isn’t in graduate school. This was so clear to me as I applied for a job at over 70 universities. How many asked me for my transcripts? One. Don’t just take my word for it. In A Guide to Ph.D. Graduate School: How They Keep Score in the Big Leagues , Charles Lord (2004) writes the following:

Since I have been in my department, we have hired more than half the current faculty. I have been intensively involved in all of these searches, both during the time I was department chair and later. Would it surprise you to know that I have never seen the graduate transcript of any of my colleagues? We do not request a transcript of graduate grades because my colleagues and I would regard that information as useless. We are trying to hire the best scholars, not people who got the best grades in their graduate courses (p.10).

What you have created (your publications) is ultimately the best evidence of a successful apprenticeship and your best selling point. I'm not recommending that you not put in a good effort in class, because you will learn things that will help your publishing and in most programs, you still need a B to pass the class. In some programs, you may lose your funding if you don't meet a certain threshold and certainly if you are just getting a Master's and plan to get a Ph.D. elsewhere, your grades matter. So do try to do pretty well, but I'm just saying that it just shouldn't be your top priority as you don't have to get perfect grades anymore. There's a huge difference in effort from an A- to an A or a B+ to an A-. Put that effort into research.

Truth #4: You Can’t Afford to Check Out For Long Breaks Like Undergraduates

Individuals with the “student” mentality follow the same pattern as undergraduates. Once finals are over, they live it up and check out all through Christmas break and the summer. Life and priorities are scheduled around class. However, with a professional mentality, you realize that you can’t afford to take such long breaks because you’ve got a job to do that is not centered on class. Everything is scheduled around research. I’m not suggesting that you need to become a workaholic . Have some fun, play hard, but don’t play as long as the undergrads because you have already started your career and everything you do counts. For example, those with the professional mentality enjoy the extra time in the summer, unencumbered with classes, to make huge strides in their publishing.

Truth #5: Theses and Dissertations Can Actually Hamper Your Progress

Whoa, you might say, this guy is really radical, how can a thesis or dissertation actually hurt you? Aren’t these research-based, after all? It’s true that going through the research process and getting some extra input and supervision can help you learn the craft. But here’s when it can be counterproductive: when doing this project is perceived as the ultimate objective and the ultimate achievement you should strive for. Let me illustrate. I’ll never forget running my first experiment in a computer lab that was shared by several other graduate students and everyone kept asking me, “So is this for your master’s thesis or for your dissertation?” After a while, I felt like screaming, “No, don’t you get it, there’s more to graduate school than a stupid dissertation. I’m doing this just for the sake of publishing an article!” Focusing on a dissertation gives those with a “student” mentality a false sense of accomplishment as if they have now completed their research requirement. Truly these milestones exist, in my opinion, to give structure for the weakest of students to get them some exposure to the research process. My graduate advisor wisely counseled me to have multiple manuscript projects underway and then when it came time for my dissertation, I could decide which project was at the “right stage” to call my dissertation. Obviously, you need to complete these hurdles, but they can be completed as one step toward your bigger goal of publishing several manuscripts.

Making the mental switch from the “student” mentality to the “professional” mentality will make all the difference for you or for your graduate students. I am curious to hear from you: which of these truths did you find to be most surprising? I cover all of these core truths in much greater depth with helpful application exercises in my book, Publish and Prosper .

Take Action

I encourage you to take action now to change your outlook of graduate school by completing some "wrap-up exercises" that will help you apply the important principles I've discussed here. Simply go to my website , click on "Book Exercise Downloads," and then click on the free download of "Chapter 14 Wrap-Up Exercises." This will be very helpful for you to cement the principles I have discussed.

Nathaniel Lambert, Ph.D. , is a psychology professor at the University of Utah.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

PhD Burnout: Recognizing, Coping, and Overcoming Academic Exhaustion

From caffeine-fueled nights to imposter syndrome nightmares, the PhD journey often feels like a grueling academic marathon with no finish line in sight. This sentiment resonates with countless doctoral students worldwide who find themselves grappling with the overwhelming demands of their academic pursuits. The phenomenon of PhD burnout has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, casting a shadow over the once-bright aspirations of many promising scholars.

PhD burnout can be defined as a state of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion resulting from prolonged exposure to high levels of stress in the academic environment. It’s characterized by a sense of cynicism, detachment from one’s work, and a decreased sense of personal accomplishment. While burnout is not unique to doctoral students, the intense pressures and unique challenges of pursuing a PhD make this group particularly vulnerable.

Recent studies have shed light on the alarming rates of burnout among PhD students. A 2017 study published in Research Policy found that one in two PhD students experiences psychological distress, with one in three at risk of developing a common psychiatric disorder. These statistics underscore the urgent need to address the issue of PhD burnout and implement effective strategies for prevention and recovery.

The importance of tackling PhD burnout cannot be overstated. Not only does it have severe consequences for the mental health and well-being of individual students, but it also impacts the broader academic community and the quality of research being produced. By addressing burnout, we can create a more supportive and sustainable academic environment that fosters innovation, creativity, and scholarly excellence.

Signs and Symptoms of PhD Burnout

Recognizing the signs and symptoms of PhD burnout is crucial for early intervention and prevention. While the experience of burnout can vary from person to person, there are several common indicators to watch out for:

1. Emotional exhaustion: This is often the most noticeable symptom of burnout. PhD students may feel overwhelmed, drained, and emotionally depleted. They might experience a sense of dread when thinking about their work or struggle to find motivation to continue their research.

2. Decreased productivity and motivation: As burnout sets in, students may find it increasingly difficult to make progress on their dissertation or research projects. Tasks that once seemed manageable now feel insurmountable, leading to a decline in productivity and a growing sense of frustration.

3. Physical symptoms: The stress of burnout often manifests in physical ways, such as chronic fatigue, insomnia, headaches, or gastrointestinal issues. These symptoms can create a vicious cycle, further exacerbating the emotional and mental aspects of burnout.

4. Cognitive difficulties: Many PhD students experiencing burnout report struggling with “brain fog” or difficulty concentrating. They may find it challenging to retain information, make decisions, or engage in complex problem-solving – skills that are essential for doctoral-level work.

5. Social withdrawal and isolation: As the demands of their academic work intensify, burnt-out PhD students may begin to withdraw from social interactions and isolate themselves. This can lead to feelings of loneliness and disconnection from peers and support networks.

Causes and Risk Factors for PhD Burnout

Understanding the underlying causes and risk factors for PhD burnout is essential for developing effective prevention and intervention strategies. Several key factors contribute to the high rates of burnout among doctoral students:

1. High workload and demanding academic expectations: The sheer volume of work required to complete a PhD can be overwhelming. From coursework and teaching responsibilities to conducting research and writing a dissertation, the workload can seem never-ending. This constant pressure to perform at a high level can lead to chronic stress and eventual burnout.

2. Imposter syndrome and self-doubt: Many PhD students struggle with feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt, often referred to as imposter syndrome . The competitive nature of academia and the constant exposure to brilliant peers and faculty members can exacerbate these feelings, leading to increased stress and anxiety.

3. Financial stress and job market uncertainty: The financial burden of pursuing a PhD, coupled with the uncertain job prospects in academia, can be a significant source of stress for many students. Worries about student loan debt and future career prospects can contribute to feelings of burnout and disillusionment.

4. Poor work-life balance: The demanding nature of PhD work often leads to an unhealthy work-life balance. Many students struggle to set boundaries between their academic and personal lives, leading to a sense of always being “on” and never truly relaxing.

5. Lack of support from advisors or peers: A supportive academic environment is crucial for PhD success. Unfortunately, some students experience inadequate support from their advisors or face competitive or hostile relationships with peers, which can contribute to feelings of isolation and burnout.

6. Pressure to publish and compete for funding: The “publish or perish” mentality in academia creates immense pressure on PhD students to produce research and secure funding. This constant pressure to perform and compete can be a significant source of stress and burnout.

Strategies for Preventing PhD Burnout

While the challenges of pursuing a PhD are undeniable, there are several strategies that students can employ to prevent burnout and maintain their well-being throughout their academic journey:

1. Setting realistic goals and expectations: It’s important for PhD students to set achievable goals and maintain realistic expectations about their progress. Breaking down large projects into smaller, manageable tasks can help reduce feelings of overwhelm and provide a sense of accomplishment.

2. Developing time management and organizational skills: Effective time management is crucial for balancing the various demands of PhD work. Utilizing tools like calendars, to-do lists, and project management software can help students stay organized and reduce stress.

3. Cultivating a support network: Building strong relationships with peers, mentors, and support staff can provide invaluable emotional and practical support throughout the PhD journey. Joining or creating support groups for PhD students can foster a sense of community and shared experience.

4. Prioritizing self-care and mental health: Regular self-care practices, such as exercise, meditation, and engaging in hobbies, are essential for maintaining mental and physical well-being. Students should prioritize these activities as an integral part of their academic routine.

5. Seeking mentorship and guidance: Developing relationships with mentors, both within and outside of one’s academic field, can provide valuable perspective and support. Mentors can offer advice on navigating academic challenges and provide encouragement during difficult times.

6. Learning to say ‘no’ and set boundaries: PhD students often feel pressure to take on additional responsibilities or commitments. Learning to set boundaries and say ‘no’ to non-essential tasks is crucial for maintaining a healthy work-life balance and preventing burnout.

Coping Mechanisms and Recovery Techniques

For PhD students who are already experiencing symptoms of burnout, there are several coping mechanisms and recovery techniques that can help alleviate stress and promote well-being:

1. Mindfulness and meditation practices: Incorporating mindfulness techniques, such as meditation or deep breathing exercises, can help reduce stress and improve focus. These practices can be particularly beneficial for managing the cognitive symptoms of burnout, such as difficulty concentrating.

2. Regular exercise and physical activity: Engaging in regular physical activity is not only beneficial for physical health but also plays a crucial role in mental well-being. Exercise can help reduce stress, improve mood, and increase energy levels – all of which are essential for combating burnout.

3. Engaging in hobbies and non-academic interests: Pursuing interests outside of academia can provide a much-needed mental break and help maintain a sense of identity beyond one’s PhD work. Whether it’s art, music, sports, or any other hobby, these activities can serve as a valuable outlet for stress and a source of joy.

4. Seeking professional help: Sometimes, the symptoms of burnout may require professional intervention. Seeking help from a therapist or counselor can provide valuable tools and strategies for managing stress and improving mental health.

5. Taking breaks and scheduling time off: Regular breaks are essential for preventing and recovering from burnout. This can include short daily breaks, weekly rest days, or longer periods of time off between semesters or research phases. It’s important to use this time to truly disconnect from work and engage in restorative activities.

6. Reframing negative thoughts and practicing self-compassion: Cognitive reframing techniques can help students challenge negative thought patterns and develop a more balanced perspective on their work and progress. Practicing self-compassion is also crucial, allowing students to treat themselves with the same kindness and understanding they would offer a friend.

Institutional Support and Policy Changes

While individual strategies are important, addressing PhD burnout also requires systemic changes within academic institutions. Here are some key areas where institutional support and policy changes can make a significant difference:

1. Improving advisor-student relationships: Universities should provide training and support for faculty members to become effective mentors and advisors. Clear guidelines for advisor-student interactions and regular check-ins can help ensure that students receive the support they need.

2. Implementing mental health resources for PhD students: Institutions should prioritize the mental health of their students by providing accessible and comprehensive mental health services. This can include counseling services, support groups, and workshops on stress management and well-being.

3. Promoting work-life balance in academic culture: Universities can play a role in shifting academic culture towards a more balanced approach to work and life. This can include policies that discourage overwork, promote flexible working hours, and recognize the importance of time off.

4. Addressing systemic issues in academia: Broader issues such as funding structures, publication pressures, and job market challenges need to be addressed at an institutional and industry-wide level. This may involve rethinking how academic success is measured and valued.

5. Providing career development support: Given the uncertain job market for PhD graduates, institutions should offer comprehensive career development support. This can include workshops on non-academic career paths, networking opportunities, and resources for developing transferable skills.

6. Encouraging peer support groups and mentoring programs: Universities can facilitate the creation of peer support groups and mentoring programs specifically for PhD students. These initiatives can provide valuable emotional support and practical advice for navigating the challenges of doctoral study.

The journey towards a PhD is undoubtedly challenging, but it doesn’t have to come at the cost of one’s mental health and well-being. By recognizing the signs of burnout, implementing preventive strategies, and utilizing coping mechanisms, PhD students can navigate the demands of their academic pursuits while maintaining their passion and enthusiasm for their work.

It’s crucial to remember that experiencing burnout is not a sign of weakness or inadequacy. The high prevalence of burnout among PhD students points to systemic issues within academia that need to be addressed. By destigmatizing burnout and openly discussing these challenges, we can create a more supportive and sustainable academic environment for all.

To all PhD students reading this: prioritize your well-being. Your research is important, but so is your health and happiness. Don’t hesitate to seek help when you need it, whether from peers, mentors, or mental health professionals. Remember that taking care of yourself is not just beneficial for your personal life – it’s essential for your academic success as well.

Finally, there is a collective responsibility to push for institutional changes that support the well-being of PhD students. From improving advisor-student relationships to implementing comprehensive mental health resources, these changes are crucial for creating an academic environment where students can thrive. By working together – students, faculty, and administrators – we can transform the PhD experience into one that is challenging yet sustainable, rigorous yet supportive.

Whether you’re a graduate student facing burnout or a faculty member concerned about your students’ well-being, remember that change is possible. By acknowledging the reality of PhD burnout and taking proactive steps to address it, we can create a brighter, healthier future for academia and the brilliant minds who drive it forward.

References:

1. Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868-879.

2. Evans, T. M., Bira, L., Gastelum, J. B., Weiss, L. T., & Vanderford, N. L. (2018). Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology, 36(3), 282-284.

3. Woolston, C. (2019). PhDs: the tortuous truth. Nature, 575(7782), 403-406.

4. Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361-388.

5. Mackie, S. A., & Bates, G. W. (2019). Contribution of the doctoral education environment to PhD candidates’ mental health problems: A scoping review. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(3), 565-578.

6. Stubb, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2011). Balancing between inspiration and exhaustion: PhD students’ experienced socio-psychological well-being. Studies in Continuing Education, 33(1), 33-50.

7. Cornér, S., Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). The relationships between doctoral students’ perceptions of supervision and burnout. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 12, 91-106.

8. Bair, C. R., & Haworth, J. G. (2004). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis of research. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 481-534). Springer, Dordrecht.

9. Schmidt, M., & Hansson, E. (2018). Doctoral students’ well-being: a literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 13(1), 1508171.

10. Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., Stubb, J., & Lonka, K. (2012). Challenges of becoming a scholar: A study of doctoral students’ problems and well-being. ISRN Education, 2012.

Similar Posts

Entrepreneur Burnout: Reclaiming Your Passion and Productivity

Flames of ambition can sear the soul, leaving even the most driven entrepreneurs smoldering in the ashes of their once-blazing passion. This stark reality is a testament to the double-edged nature of entrepreneurial drive, where the very fuel that propels individuals towards success can also consume them from within. In the fast-paced world of business…

Counselor Burnout: Causes, Prevention, and Recovery Strategies for Mental Health Professionals

Emotions ablaze and spirits withered, the very healers of minds find themselves teetering on the precipice of an invisible inferno—counselor burnout. This phenomenon, increasingly prevalent in the mental health field, poses a significant threat not only to the well-being of counselors but also to the quality of care they provide to their clients. Counselor burnout…

Employee Burnout: Causes, Prevention, and Solutions for the Silent Workplace Epidemic

As the gears of modern workplaces grind relentlessly, a silent epidemic lurks, ready to transform passionate professionals into hollow shells of their former selves. This insidious force, known as employee burnout, has become a pervasive issue in today’s fast-paced, high-pressure work environments. As organizations strive for increased productivity and efficiency, the human cost of these…

Burnout Recovery Timeline: Why Full Healing Can Take 3-5 Years

Like a phoenix rising from the ashes of its own exhaustion, the journey to reclaim your vitality after burnout is a marathon, not a sprint—and it’s one that demands years, not months, to complete. Burnout, a state of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion caused by prolonged stress, can leave deep scars that take time to…

Burnout’s Hidden Costs: A Comprehensive Analysis for Individuals and Companies

As the gears of productivity grind relentlessly, an invisible thief lurks in the shadows of our workplaces, silently siphoning billions from both personal and corporate coffers. This insidious culprit, known as burnout, has become an increasingly prevalent issue in modern workplaces, affecting individuals and organizations alike. The costs associated with burnout are far-reaching and often…

Executive Burnout: Revitalizing Leadership and Restoring Balance Through Retreats

As the corner office becomes a pressure cooker, savvy leaders are trading their suits for serene surroundings to reclaim their sanity and supercharge their success. This growing trend reflects the increasing recognition of executive burnout as a critical issue affecting not only individual leaders but entire organizations. The relentless pace of modern business, coupled with…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

Contributed equally to this work with: Loay Jabre, Catherine Bannon, J. Scott P. McCain, Yana Eglit

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

• Loay Jabre, 
• Catherine Bannon, 
• J. Scott P. McCain, 

Published: September 30, 2021

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330
• Reader Comments

Citation: Jabre L, Bannon C, McCain JSP, Eglit Y (2021) Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor. PLoS Comput Biol 17(9): e1009330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330

Editor: Scott Markel, Dassault Systemes BIOVIA, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2021 Jabre et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The PhD beckons. You thought long and hard about why you want to do it, you understand the sacrifices and commitments it entails, and you have decided that it is the right thing for you. Congratulations! Undertaking a doctoral degree can be an extremely rewarding experience, greatly enhancing your personal, intellectual, and professional development. If you are still on the fence about whether or not you want to pursue a PhD, see [ 1 , 2 ] and others to help you decide.

As a PhD student in the making, you will have many important decisions to consider. Several of them will depend on your chosen discipline and research topic, the institution you want to attend, and even the country where you will undertake your degree. However, one of the earliest and most critical decisions you will need to make transcends most other decisions: choosing your PhD thesis supervisor. Your PhD supervisor will strongly influence the success and quality of your degree as well as your general well-being throughout the program. It is therefore vital to choose the right supervisor for you. A wrong choice or poor fit can be disastrous on both a personal and professional levels—something you obviously want to avoid. Unfortunately, however, most PhD students go through the process of choosing a supervisor only once and thus do not get the opportunity to learn from previous experiences. Additionally, many prospective PhD students do not have access to resources and proper guidance to rely on when making important academic decisions such as those involved in choosing a PhD supervisor.

In this short guide, we—a group of PhD students with varied backgrounds, research disciplines, and academic journeys—share our collective experiences with choosing our own PhD supervisors. We provide tips and advice to help prospective students in various disciplines, including computational biology, in their quest to find a suitable PhD supervisor. Despite procedural differences across countries, institutions, and programs, the following rules and discussions should remain helpful for guiding one’s approach to selecting their future PhD supervisor. These guidelines mostly address how to evaluate a potential PhD supervisor and do not include details on how you might find a supervisor. In brief, you can find a supervisor anywhere: seminars, a class you were taught, internet search of interesting research topics, departmental pages, etc. After reading about a group’s research and convincing yourself it seems interesting, get in touch! Make sure to craft an e-mail carefully, demonstrating you have thought about their research and what you might do in their group. After finding one or several supervisors of interest, we hope that the rules bellow will help you choose the right supervisor for you.

Rule 1: Align research interests

You need to make sure that a prospective supervisor studies, or at the very least, has an interest in what you want to study. A good starting point would be to browse their personal and research group websites (though those are often outdated), their publication profile, and their students’ theses, if possible. Keep in mind that the publication process can be slow, so recent publications may not necessarily reflect current research in that group. Pay special attention to publications where the supervisor is senior author—in life sciences, their name would typically be last. This would help you construct a mental map of where the group interests are going, in addition to where they have been.

Be proactive about pursuing your research interests, but also flexible: Your dream research topic might not currently be conducted in a particular group, but perhaps the supervisor is open to exploring new ideas and research avenues with you. Check that the group or institution of interest has the facilities and resources appropriate for your research, and/or be prepared to establish collaborations to access those resources elsewhere. Make sure you like not only the research topic, but also the “grunt work” it requires, as a topic you find interesting may not be suitable for you in terms of day-to-day work. You can look at the “Methods” sections of published papers to get a sense for what this is like—for example, if you do not like resolving cryptic error messages, programming is probably not for you, and you might want to consider a wet lab–based project. Lastly, any research can be made interesting, and interests change. Perhaps your favorite topic today is difficult to work with now, and you might cut your teeth on a different project.

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

Discussing your plans with experienced and trustworthy people is a great way to learn more about the reputation of potential supervisors, their research group dynamics, and exciting projects in your field of interest. Your current supervisor, if you have one, could be aware of position openings that are compatible with your interests and time frame and is likely to know talented supervisors with good reputations in their fields. Professors you admire, reliable student advisors, and colleagues might also know your prospective supervisor on various professional or personal levels and could have additional insight about working with them. Listen carefully to what these trusted sources have to say, as they can provide a wealth of insider information (e.g., personality, reputation, interpersonal relationships, and supervisory styles) that might not be readily accessible to you.

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

A considerable portion of PhD students feel that their program does not meet original expectations [ 3 ]. To avoid being part of this group, we stress the importance of aligning your expectations with the supervisor’s expectations before joining a research group or PhD program. Also, remember that one person’s dream supervisor can be another’s worst nightmare and vice versa—it is about a good fit for you. Identifying what a “good fit” looks like requires a serious self-appraisal of your goals (see Rule 1 ), working style (see Rule 5 ), and what you expect in a mentor (see Rule 4 ). One way to conduct this self-appraisal is to work in a research lab to get experiences similar to a PhD student (if this is possible).

Money!—Many people have been conditioned to avoid the subject of finances at all costs, but setting financial expectations early is crucial for maintaining your well-being inside and outside the lab. Inside the lab, funding will provide chemicals and equipment required for you to do cool research. It is also important to know if there will be sufficient funding for your potential projects to be completed. Outside the lab, you deserve to get paid a reasonable, livable stipend. What is the minimum required take-home stipend, or does that even exist at the institution you are interested in? Are there hard cutoffs for funding once your time runs out, or does the institution have support for students who take longer than anticipated? If the supervisor supplies the funding, do they end up cutting off students when funds run low, or do they have contingency plans? ( Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g001

Professional development opportunities—A key aspect of graduate school training is professional development. In some research groups, it is normal for PhD students to mentor undergraduate students or take a semester to work in industry to get more diverse experiences. Other research groups have clear links with government entities, which is helpful for going into policy or government-based research. These opportunities (and others) are critical for your career and next steps. What are the career development opportunities and expectations of a potential supervisor? Is a potential supervisor happy to send students to workshops to learn new skills? Are they supportive of public outreach activities? If you are looking at joining a newer group, these sorts of questions will have to be part of the larger set of conversations about expectations. Ask: “What sort of professional development opportunities are there at the institution?”

Publications—Some PhD programs have minimum requirements for finishing a thesis (i.e., you must publish a certain number of papers prior to defending), while other programs leave it up to the student and supervisor to decide on this. A simple and important topic to discuss is: How many publications are expected from your PhD and when will you publish them? If you are keen to publish in high-impact journals, does your prospective supervisor share that aim? (Although question why you are so keen to do so, see the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment ( www.sfdora.org ) to learn about the pitfalls of journal impact factor.)

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

Sooner or later, you will get to meet and interview with a prospective PhD supervisor. This should go both ways: Interview them just as much as they are interviewing you. Prepare questions and pay close attention to how they respond. For example, ask them about their “lab culture,” research interests (especially for the future/long term), and what they are looking for in a graduate student. Do you feel like you need to “put on an act” to go along with the supervisor (beyond just the standard interview mode)? Represent yourself, and not the person you think they are looking for. All of us will have some interviews go badly. Remember that discovering a poor fit during the interview has way fewer consequences than the incompatibility that could arise once you have committed to a position.

To come up with good questions for the prospective supervisor, first ask yourself questions. What are you looking for in a mentor? People differ in their optimal levels of supervision, and there is nothing wrong with wanting more or less than your peers. How much career guidance do you expect and does the potential supervisor respect your interests, particularly if your long-term goals do not include academia? What kind of student might not thrive in this research group?

Treat the PhD position like a partnership: What do you seek to get out of it? Keep in mind that a large portion of research is conducted by PhD students [ 4 ], so you are also an asset. Your supervisor will provide guidance, but the PhD is your work. Make sure you and your mentor are on the same page before committing to what is fundamentally a professional contract akin to an apprenticeship (see “ Rule 3 ”).

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

Sharing interests with a supervisor does not necessarily guarantee you would work well together, and just because you enjoyed a course by a certain professor does not mean they are the right PhD supervisor for you. Make sure your expectations for work and work–life approaches are compatible. Do you thrive on structure, or do you need freedom to proceed at your own pace? Do they expect you to be in the lab from 6:00 AM to midnight on a regular basis (red flag!)? Are they comfortable with you working from home when you can? Are they around the lab enough for it to work for you? Are they supportive of alternative work hours if you have other obligations (e.g., childcare, other employment, extracurriculars)? How is the group itself organized? Is there a lab manager or are the logistics shared (fairly?) between the group members? Discuss this before you commit!

Two key attributes of a research group are the supervisor’s career stage and number of people in the group. A supervisor in a later career stage may have more established research connections and protocols. An earlier career stage supervisor comes with more opportunities to shape the research direction of the lab, but less access to academic political power and less certainty in what their supervision style will be (even to themselves). Joining new research groups provides a great opportunity to learn how to build a lab if you are considering that career path but may take away time and energy from your thesis project. Similarly, be aware of pros and cons of different lab sizes. While big labs provide more opportunity for collaborations and learning from fellow lab members, their supervisors generally have less time available for each trainee. Smaller labs tend to have better access to the supervisor but may be more isolating [ 5 , 6 ]. Also note that large research groups tend to be better for developing extant research topics further, while small groups can conduct more disruptive research [ 7 ].

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

Meeting with current students is one of the most important steps prior to joining a lab. Current students will give you the most direct and complete sense of what working with a certain supervisor is actually like. They can also give you a valuable sense of departmental culture and nonacademic life. You could also ask to meet with other students in the department to get a broader sense of the latter. However, if current students are not happy with their current supervisor, they are unlikely to tell you directly. Try to ask specific questions: “How often do you meet with your supervisor?”, “What are the typical turnaround times for a paper draft?”, “How would you describe the lab culture?”, “How does your supervisor react to mistakes or unexpected results?”, “How does your supervisor react to interruptions to research from, e.g., personal life?”, and yes, even “What would you say is the biggest weakness of your supervisor?”

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

While not always possible, meeting with past students can be very informative. Past students give you information on career outcomes (i.e., what are they doing now?) and can provide insight into what the lab was like when they were in it. Previous students will provide a unique perspective because they have gone through the entire process, from start to finish—and, in some cases, no longer feel obligated to speak well of their now former supervisor. It can also be helpful to look at previous students’ experiences by reading the acknowledgement section in their theses.

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

Your PhD supervisor is only one—albeit large—piece of your PhD puzzle. It is therefore essential to consider your PhD experience as whole when deciding on a supervisor. One important aspect to contemplate is your mental health. Graduate students have disproportionately higher rates of depression and anxiety compared to the general population [ 8 ], so your mental health will be tested greatly throughout your PhD experience. We suggest taking the time to reflect on what factors would enable you to do your best work while maintaining a healthy work–life balance. Does your happiness depend on surfing regularly? Check out coastal areas. Do you despise being cold? Consider being closer to the equator. Do you have a deep-rooted phobia of koalas? Maybe avoid Australia. Consider these potentially even more important questions like: Do you want to be close to your friends and family? Will there be adequate childcare support? Are you comfortable with studying abroad? How does the potential university treat international or underrepresented students? When thinking about your next steps, keep in mind that although obtaining your PhD will come with many challenges, you will be at your most productive when you are well rested, financially stable, nourished, and enjoying your experience.

Rule 9: Trust your gut

You have made it to our most “hand-wavy” rule! As academics, we understand the desire for quantifiable data and some sort of statistic to make logical decisions. If this is more your style, consider every interaction with a prospective supervisor, from the first e-mail onwards, as a piece of data.

However, there is considerable value in trusting gut instincts. One way to trust your gut is to listen to your internal dialogue while making your decision on a PhD supervisor. For example, if your internal dialogue includes such phrases as “it will be different for me,” “I’ll just put my head down and work hard,” or “maybe their students were exaggerating,” you might want to proceed with caution. If you are saying “Wow! How are they so kind and intelligent?” or “I cannot wait to start!”, then you might have found a winner ( Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g002

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

The last piece of advice we give you is to do this lengthy process all over again. Comparing your options is a key step during the search for a PhD supervisor. By screening multiple different groups, you ultimately learn more about what red flags to look for, compatible work styles, your personal expectations, and group atmospheres. Repeat this entire process with another supervisor, another university, or even another country. We suggest you reject the notion that you would be “wasting someone’s time.” You deserve to take your time and inform yourself to choose a PhD supervisor wisely. The time and energy invested in a “failed” supervisor search would still be far less than what is consumed by a bad PhD experience ( Fig 3 ).

The more supervisors your interview and the more advice you get from peers, the more apparent these red flags will become.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g003

Conclusions

Pursuing a PhD can be an extremely rewarding endeavor and a time of immense personal growth. The relationship you have with your PhD supervisor can make or break an entire experience, so make this choice carefully. Above, we have outlined some key points to think about while making this decision. Clarifying your own expectations is a particularly important step, as conflicts can arise when there are expectation mismatches. In outlining these topics, we hope to share pieces of advice that sometimes require “insider” knowledge and experience.

After thoroughly evaluating your options, go ahead and tackle the PhD! In our own experiences, carefully choosing a supervisor has led to relationships that morph from mentor to mentee into a collaborative partnership where we can pose new questions and construct novel approaches to answer them. Science is hard enough by itself. If you choose your supervisor well and end up developing a positive relationship with them and their group, you will be better suited for sound and enjoyable science.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 5. Smith D. The big benefits of working in a small lab. University Affairs. 2013. Available from: https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/career-advice-article/the-big-benefits-of-working-in-a-small-lab/

Perhaps It’s Not You It’s Them: PhD Student-Supervisor Relationships

• First Online: 15 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Zoë J. Ayres 2  

9454 Accesses

This chapter explores the PhD Student-Supervisor relationship, outlining the role of a PhD Supervisor, discussing relationship management, and how to recognise signs of bullying and harassment if they occur.

(Trigger Warnings: bullying, harassment, sexual harassment)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Depending on your country of study a PhD Supervisor may be called the Principal Investigator (PI) or you PhD Supervisor, or PhD Advisor. For the purpose of this chapter I will use “Supervisor”, to mean the academic in charge of your PhD research.

I count myself lucky every single day that I fell into the 76% category.

If you did not get this memo before starting your PhD, please do not worry. It is common for first-generation students to not get this information ahead of time.

Survivor bias is defined as the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility.

The sunk cost fallacy reasoning states that further investments or commitments are justified because the resources already invested will be lost otherwise . In the case of PhD study it can be that if we just “stick it out” and try to manage the abuse we are being subject to we will get our PhD. In reality, leaving and starting a PhD elsewhere may be beneficial.

van Rooij E, Fokkens-Bruinsma M, Jansen E (2021) Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: the importance of PhD project characteristics. Stud Contin Educ 43(1):48–67

Article   Google Scholar  

Woolston C (2019) PhDs: the tortuous truth. Nature 575(7782):403–407

Pyke KD (2018) Institutional betrayal: inequity, discrimination, bullying, and retaliation in academia. Sociol Perspect 61(1):5–13

Vilkinas T (1998) Management of the PhD process: the challenging role of the supervisor. In: Quality in postgraduate research. University of Adelaide, Adelaide

Google Scholar  

Rose GL (2003) Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Res High Educ 44(4):473–494

Vilkinas T, Cartan G (2006) The integrated competing values framework: its spatial configuration. J Manage Dev 25(6):505–521

Guccione K, Hutchinson S (2021) Coaching and mentoring for academic development. Emerald Group, Bingley

Book   Google Scholar  

Hund AK, Churchill AC, Faist AM, Havrilla CA, Stowell SML, McCreery HF, Ng J, Pinzone CA, Scordato ESC (2018) Transforming mentorship in STEM by training scientists to be better leaders. Ecol Evol 8(20):9962–9974

Amundsen C, McAlpine L (2009) ‘Learning supervision’: trial by fire. Innov Educ Teach Int 46(3):331–342

Schimanski LA, Alperin JP (2018) The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: past, present, and future. F1000Research 71605

Bagilhole B (1993) How to keep a good woman down: an investigation of the role of institutional factors in the process of discrimination against women academics. Br J Sociol Educ 14(3):261–274

Aiston SJ, Jung J (2015) Women academics and research productivity: an international comparison. Gend Educ 27(3):205–220

Giacalone RA, Knouse SB, Montagliani A (1997) Motivation for and prevention of honest responding in exit interviews and surveys. J Psychol 131(4):438–448

Hall W, Liva S (2022) Falling through the cracks: graduate students’ experiences of mentoring absence. Can J Scholarsh Teach Learn 13(1):1–15

UK Research Councils Statement of Expectations for Postgraduate Training. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UKRI-120721-StatementOfExpectationsPostGradTraining.pdf . Accessed 21 Jun 2022

Chamberlain S (2016) Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships - which is yours? https://theconversation.com/ten-types-of-phd-supervisor-relationships-which-is-yours-52967 . Accessed 21 Jun 2022

Clay M (2012) Sink or swim: drowning the next generation of research leaders? Aust Q 83(4):26–31

Bégin C, Géarard L (2013) The role of supervisors in light of the experience of doctoral students. Policy Futures Educ 11(3):267–276

Hemprich-Bennett D, Rabaiotti D, Kennedy E (2021) Beware survivorship bias in advice on science careers. Nature 598(7880):373–374

Parker-Jenkins M (2018) Mind the gap: developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship. Stud High Educ 43(1):57–71

Moran H, Karlin L, Lauchlan E, Rappaport SJ, Bleasdale B, Wild L, Dorr J (2020) Understanding research culture: what researchers think about the culture they work in. Wellcome Trust, London, UK

Lee D (1998) Sexual harassment in PhD supervision. Gend Educ 10(3):299–312

Misawa M (2015) Cuts and bruises caused by arrows, sticks, and stones in academia: theorizing three types of racist and homophobic bullying in adult and higher education. Adult Learn 26(1):6–13

Cohen A, Baruch Y (2021) Abuse and exploitation of doctoral students: a conceptual model for traversing a long and winding road to academia. J Bus Ethics:1–18

Moss SE, Mahmoudi M (2021) STEM the bullying: an empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science. EClinicalMedicine 40101121

Gewin V (2021) How to blow the whistle on an academic bully. Nature 593(7858):299–301

Saló-Salgado L, Acocella A, Arzuaga García I, El Mousadik S, and Zvinavashe A (2021) Managing up: how to communicate effectively with your PhD adviser. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03703-z . Accessed 15 Feb 2022

The Wellbeing Thesis (2022) Managing your supervisor. https://thewellbeingthesis.org.uk/using-the-resources-available/managing-your-supervisor/ . Accessed 20 Feb 2022

Eley A, Jennings R (2005) Effective postgraduate supervision: improving the student/supervisor relationship. McGraw-Hill Education (UK), London, UK

Hockey J (1996) A contractual solution to problems in the supervision of PhD degrees in the UK. Stud High Educ 21(3):359–371

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zoë J. Ayres

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ayres, Z.J. (2022). Perhaps It’s Not You It’s Them: PhD Student-Supervisor Relationships. In: Managing your Mental Health during your PhD. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2_9

Published : 15 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-14193-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-14194-2

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Highlighting the positive aspects of being a PhD student

Camille bernery.

1 Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech Orsay, France

Léo Lusardi

Clara marino, martin philippe-lesaffre, elena angulo.

2 Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC Sevilla, Spain

Elsa Bonnaud

Loreleï guéry.

3 UMR Plant Health Institute of Montpellier, CIRAD and INRAE Montpellier, France

Eléna Manfrini

Anna turbelin, céline albert.

4 Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre Frankfurt am Main, Germany

5 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute Front Royal, United States

Franck Courchamp

Associated data.

All data generated or analysed during this study came from Twitter API and cannot be shared.

Articles about doing a PhD tend to focus on the difficulties faced by research students. Here we argue that the scientific community should also highlight the positive elements of the PhD experience.

Introduction

Doing a PhD can be both demanding and rewarding. In addition to overcoming the scientific and intellectual challenges involved in doing original research, a PhD student may also have to deal with financial difficulties, an unhealthy work-life balance, or resulting concerns about their mental health ( Woolston, 2017 ; Auerbach et al., 2018 ; Oswalt et al., 2020 ; Evans et al., 2018 ). Despite all this, most PhD students seem satisfied with their decision to do a PhD, mostly because they work in stimulating environments with a high degree of independence and good supervision ( Pommier et al., 2022 ; Woolston, 2017 ).

Paradoxically, however, the fact that most PhD students are positive about doing a PhD is not always apparent to the outside world. For example, the present authors recently analysed more than 90,000 tweets about the PhD experience: almost half of the tweets were positive, and less than a sixth were negative, yet the negative tweets received more likes and retweets ( Figure 1 ). What can be done to counter such misleading and negative impressions? In this article we – a group of PhD students, postdocs and permanent academics – highlight the positive elements of doing a PhD in order to present a more balanced view of the whole PhD experience. We also make recommendations to maintain a positive momentum throughout the PhD. Although these ideas and recommendations are based on our experiences as researchers in ecology working in Europe, we feel that most of the points we make also apply in other disciplines and places.

We retrieved all tweets posted in the English language during 12 consecutive weeks, from September to December 2021, that contained any of the following six hashtags: #phdlife, #phdspeaks, #phdvoice, #phdchat, #phdtips, #phdstudent. We then measured the sentiment (positive, negative or neutral) associated with each original tweet (excluding retweets). Of the 91 229 tweets we retrieved, 43,941 were positive, 12,298 were negative, and 34,990 were neutral. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to compare the average number of likes and retweets of positive versus negative tweets. Negative tweets received significantly more likes than positive tweets (14.5 vs 12.3; P <0.001); negative tweets were also retweeted more than positive tweets but the difference was not significant (1.7 vs 1.5; P =0.383). The Twitter API and the “rtweet” R package ( cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rtweet/vignettes/intro.html ) were used to retrieve the tweets; the “syuzhet” R package ( rdrr.io/cran/syuzhet/ ) and the Bing lexicon ( Liu, 2012 ) were used for the sentiment analysis; all analyses were performed with R software ( R Development Core Team, 2021 ).

Three benefits of doing a PhD

There are two primary outputs from a PhD: new skills and expertise for the graduate, and new knowledge for the wider world. In this article we focus on the former and discuss the three main benefits of doing a PhD for the individual: (i) the development of specific skills to become an expert; (ii) the ability to work in a collaborative environment; (iii) improved communication skills while sharing knowledge ( Figure 2 ). For each of these benefits we discuss both general aspects that apply to most doctoral students, and specific aspects that depend on the student’s supervisor, field of research, location and other factors.

The three primary benefits of doing a PhD are acquiring expertise (pink circle), learning to work in a collaborative environment (blue), and developing communication skills for sharing knowledge (yellow). For each benefit, general aspects that apply to almost all doctoral students are shown in bold type in the small circle, and specific aspects that depend on, for example, the student’s supervisor or field of research are shown in plain type in the large circle. The large grey area contains more abstract and subjective ideas that are not discussed in the main text. It should be noted that this figure is conceptual, and that the aspects and ideas in it could be grouped in other, equally valid, ways.

Becoming an expert

Throughout a doctoral project, a PhD student will develop many of the skills needed to grow into an independent researcher, while also developing expertise in a given field. In addition to learning a great deal about their own field – and adding knowledge to it – a PhD student will learn how to perform a variety of tasks, and thus acquire new transferable skills. These will include autonomy, critical thinking, organization and planning, resilience, and the ability to design, lead and carry out projects. Furthermore, unlike postdocs and principal investigators, who have to carry out various management and administrative tasks, PhD students are usually free to dedicate their working hours almost exclusively to academic pursuits that they are (or can become) passionate about. This freedom is one of the aspects that make the PhD experience unique, and it should not be overlooked or taken for granted. Unfortunately, not all PhD students benefit from or are aware of such autonomy, but this ought to be an objective for all PhDs.

A PhD does not consist of a number of uneventful years that culminate in a single success. Rather, there are many steps along the way – such as mastering a technique, completing a series of experiments or activities in the field, or finishing the first draft of a manuscript – and the feeling of accomplishment that comes with each completed milestone should be a source of pride to the student.

Working in a collaborative environment

Learning how to work with other researchers is an important part of getting a PhD. The PhD student’s most important working relationship is with their supervisor (or, in some cases, supervisors), but most PhD students will also have the opportunity to collaborate with other members of their research group or lab, or even with researchers from the wider community. Working on other projects from time to time can help the student’s own project through increased productivity and creativity; moreover, it can strengthen lab cohesion, and might even lead to the student being a co-author on a paper. Additionally, supervising undergraduate students – or even new graduate students – is a good way of acquiring management skills.

Conferences are another way to meet and interact with other researchers. In particular, they are an opportunity to discover, discuss and be inspired by the work of other scientists. Conversations at conferences can generate new research questions or ideas for new and improved ways to tackle existing questions. Moreover, presenting results at a conference gives students a chance to receive feedback, to be recognized as active researchers by their peers, and to build a professional network.

Collaboration also can happen through the many virtual communities that PhD students can join for technical, scientific or moral support. For example, the Global PhD Server enables doctoral students to discuss their experience, exchange anecdotes, and offer or seek help. The @PhDForum supports a variety of activities, such as writing sessions for PhD students working on papers or chapters of their thesis, while Stack Overflow is a good place to offer/seek help with coding and statistics.

Developing communication skills

The ability to communicate results is a crucial skill for any researcher. A PhD student will, for example, be required to present their work to other scientists as talks or posters at meetings and conferences. The student will also start learning how to write a scientific article. Moreover, there are many opportunities for PhD students to share their passion and knowledge about their field, such as teaching and mentoring undergraduates and other graduate students. They can also get involved in public outreach, and contribute to awakening new passions or educating citizens on certain topics.

Recommendations

Along the PhD journey, neither the doctoral student nor the supervisor will have full control over what will happen. Some things will go wrong, which is why it is important to remain positive and try to make the most of what is a unique opportunity. Ways for the student to remain positive include going back to old pages in their laboratory notebook to see how much progress has been made, and keeping a note of all the positive feedback from different people. It is also important to remember that one does not become a PhD student by chance – being accepted to do a PhD is an achievement in itself. Additionally, sharing preliminary results with other members of the group and attending social events of a lab can build a supportive working atmosphere and help students to stay positive.

Focusing only on research can sometimes be exhausting, so spending time on other activities – such as supervising students, teaching, or working on outreach – can break the monotony and generate a sense of progress. Finally, it is important to celebrate achievements, such as a first draft, an accepted paper, a conference presentation or the submission of a grant proposal (and, obviously, a successful grant proposal). These achievements can be celebrated in the real world, on social media – or both! By regularly highlighting positive outcomes, it is easier to recognise that past difficulties have been overcome, that progress has been made, and that expertise, skills and knowledge have been gained.

In parallel, it is important to try to limit the impact of the negative aspects of the PhD experience, for they are real and various, and can be crushing if left unchecked. First, it is essential to contextualize them. For example, bear in mind that failure is an integral part of progress, and is often just a temporary setback as opposed to a defeat. This is especially true when a manuscript is rejected by a journal: viewing the rejection as an opportunity to improve the manuscript, and acknowledging that the reviewer reports are about the science, not the authors, can help reframe rejections in a positive light. After all, even the most distinguished researchers have experienced rejection many times. Moreover, as highlighted above, science is a collective adventure, and one is rarely alone when help is sought out. In this regard, talking about the challenges one encounters during a PhD with other students or researchers can also help put these challenges into perspective and to see the positive aspects.

The relationship between the PhD student and their supervisor will likely have a big influence on the PhD experience. However, it is important to recognize that this relationship works both ways, and both stand to benefit if it works well. Among other things, the PhD students can help their own cause by being clear on the type of feedback they want, or by scheduling regular meetings focused on their PhD – and persisting even if their supervisor is busy ( Kearns and Gardiner, 2011 ).

We would also encourage supervisors to be positive in their interactions with their PhD students, and to build a global productive environment that could benefit the PhD student ( Andreev et al., 2022 ). Supervisors could, for example, praise PhD students when the opportunity arises, and ensure that criticism is always constructive – and also encourage other members of their lab to do the same.

PhD students may also face challenges that cannot be overcome with positive thinking. Abusive behaviours such as bullying, harassment or discrimination should be reported to the relevant authorities immediately.

Some PhD students will also be anxious about their future job prospects, especially if they hope to remain in academic research. One way to help reduce such anxiety is to clarify life/career goals and identify the steps needed to reach them. For example, if the student makes a list of all potential funding opportunities (including deadlines) at the start of their last year, it will help them plan for the future and relieve some of the pressure that will build up towards the end of their PhD. Building a professional network can also help with career planning, and attending conferences and establishing collaborations are crucial in this regard.

Finally, if needed, it is entirely acceptable for a PhD student to take a break during their PhD, to refocus on what they really want in life, or to even leave their PhD without finishing it if they realize that it is not for them. However, before making such a decision, we would encourage the student to ask themselves if the doubts they are experiencing are due to a momentary difficulty that will pass, or if a PhD is not really the right career path for them.

Doing a PhD is a unique experience that typically occupies three or more years of someone’s life. Through this experience the student will be enriched by acquiring a range of professional and personal skills, and by gaining a prestigious qualification. In the end, it is in the interest of everyone – the PhD student, the supervisor, their colleagues, their institutions, and academia in general – to make this experience as positive as possible.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the internal reviewers (Céline Bellard, Eva Delmas, Christophe Diagne and Xavier Fauvergue) for useful recommendations. Work on this paper began during a lab retreat attended by all co-authors. PhD students were funded by the French Ministry of Higher Education (CB, LL, CM, MPL); postdocs were funded by the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (UA), the Biodiversa ERA-Net AlienScenario project (AT), and the AXA Research Fund Chair for Invasion Biology of University Paris-Saclay (EA, CA, EM); Tenured academics salary were funded by the University Paris-Saclay (EB), the CIRAD (LG) and the CNRS (FC). MPL was also funded as an intern by the ENS Paris-Saclay during part of the project.

Biographies

Camille Bernery is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Léo Lusardi is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Clara Marino is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Martin Philippe-Lesaffre is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Elena Angulo is in the Estación Biológica de Doñana, CSIC, Sevilla, Spain and the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Elsa Bonnaud is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Loreleï Guéry is in the UMR Plant Health Institute of Montpellier, CIRAD and INRAE, Montpellier, France

Eléna Manfrini is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Anna Turbelin is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Céline Albert is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Ugo Arbieu is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France, the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, United States

Franck Courchamp is in the Laboratoire Écologie Systématique Évolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS and AgroParisTech, Orsay, France

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization.

Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Data availability

• Andreev A, Komatsu V, Almiron P, Rose K, Hughes A, Lee MY. Welcome to the lab. eLife. 2022; 11 :e79627. doi: 10.7554/eLife.79627. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Auerbach RP, Mortier P, Bruffaerts R, Alonso J, Benjet C, Cuijpers P, Demyttenaere K, Ebert DD, Green JG, Hasking P, Murray E, Nock MK, Pinder-Amaker S, Sampson NA, Stein DJ, Vilagut G, Zaslavsky AM, Kessler RC, WHO WMH-ICS Collaborators WHO World Mental Health Surveys International College Student Project: Prevalence and distribution of mental disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2018; 127 :623–638. doi: 10.1037/abn0000362. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans TM, Bira L, Gastelum JB, Weiss LT, Vanderford NL. Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology. 2018; 36 :282–284. doi: 10.1038/nbt.4089. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kearns H, Gardiner M. The care and maintenance of your adviser. Nature. 2011; 469 :570. doi: 10.1038/nj7331-570a. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu B. Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. 2012; 5 :1–167. doi: 10.2200/S00416ED1V01Y201204HLT016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oswalt SB, Lederer AM, Chestnut-Steich K, Day C, Halbritter A, Ortiz D. Trends in college students’ mental health diagnoses and utilization of services, 2009-2015. Journal of American College Health. 2020; 68 :41–51. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1515748. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pommier S, Talby M, Auffray-Seguette M, Dalaut M, Eijsberg H, Elshawish P, Muller H. Le doctorat en France Regards croisés sur la formation doctorale. Réseau National de Collèges Doctoraux. 2022. [June 28, 2022]. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03494721
• R Development Core Team . Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. https://www.r-project.org/index.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolston C. Graduate survey: A love–hurt relationship. Nature. 2017; 550 :549–552. doi: 10.1038/nj7677-549a. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Cost of attendance: Graduate cost of attendance

The annual graduate student budget, or cost of attendance, is the total price of an MIT education—per student, per year.

The cost of attendance is the total amount we estimate it will cost a graduate student to attend MIT for one year. ⁠It includes costs that are billed by MIT, such as tuition, and estimates for other expenses, such as housing, food, books, supplies, and personal expenses. We use this budget to determine the loan eligibility ⁠ 01 Loan eligibility is the maximum amount you can borrow in loans in a given year.   for every student.

Cost of attendance

The chart below is an account of costs and fees associated with an MIT graduate education prior to any funding or aid.

• The standard academic year of September–May is shown in the 9-month cost column.
• The 12-month cost column is used if a student is also registered for the summer academic session.

Please note: If your student health insurance is covered via a Fellowship, Research Assistant or Teaching Assistant appointment, you are still responsible for the enrollment and cost of the Student Health Insurance Plan premium for a spouse or partner and any dependents.

Cost of attendance for the 2024–2025 academic year

*Graduate programs at the Sloan School of Management have their own tuition , and certain other graduate programs at MIT also employ  “non-standard” tuition .  Special students  and  visiting students  should refer to the tuition and fee information specific to them.

**Health insurance will only be included in your cost of attendance if you choose to enroll in the MIT Student Health Insurance Plan.

What if my expenses are higher than the cost of attendance estimates?

When looking at loan options, the maximum amount you may borrow is the total cost of attendance amount, minus any financial aid you receive from MIT or outside sources (this includes funding from employers). If you do not see the funding you received, or will receive, reported in your financial aid, please reach out to us at [email protected] as this will impact your loan eligibility.

Federal Loan fees will be automatically included in your loan borrowing eligibility.

If your actual living expenses are significantly higher than the cost of attendance, we may be able to adjust your budget and increase your loan eligibility. Visit the special circumstances page for details.

Computer purchases

When you take out a loan for your educational expenses, the amount you can borrow is based on the cost of attendance. For first year grad students, MIT includes a $2,300 allowance for a computer. This lets you take out a bit more in order to purchase a computer if you need one.

If taking out a loan creates a credit on your student account, you may request a refund and put it towards your computer.

Loaner laptops

If you need to borrow a laptop while your computer order is being processed/shipped, please visit the IS&T website to request a short-term loaner laptop .

• Loan eligibility is the maximum amount you can borrow in loans in a given year. ⁠ back to text ↑
• Tuition covers your specific graduate program. ⁠ back to text ↑
• These help fund student clubs, organizations, and the sports and fitness center. ⁠ back to text ↑
• The MIT Student Health Insurance Plan is a comprehensive insurance plan that meets state and federal health insurance requirements and J-1 visa requirements. Learn more on the MIT Health website . ⁠ back to text ↑
• We want to give applicants a realistic assessment of the costs associated with a graduate education. Living costs in the Cambridge and Greater Boston area are among the highest in the United States. To see a further breakdown of possible living expenses, please visit our Graduate Admissions website . ⁠ back to text ↑
• Food budgets vary depending on the individual, but we use the following numbers to calculate your loan eligibility. ⁠ back to text ↑
• This out-of-pocket expense can vary depending on the student, but we use these numbers to calculate your loan eligibility. ⁠ back to text ↑
• This out-of-pocket expense varies a lot depending on the student, but we use these numbers to calculate your loan eligibility. This covers things like clothes, laundry, phone, Internet, and personal care. ⁠ back to text ↑
• This includes your transportation around the city (MIT subsidizes 50% of the cost of MBTA T-passes ), as well as money used to travel to and from campus. ⁠ back to text ↑
• This is the "full" price, before any loans are applied. ⁠ back to text ↑

Graduate Student Assistant for AWARE Ambassadors Program

Apply now Job no: 532883 Work type: Student Ast Location: Main Campus (Gainesville, FL) Categories: Communications/Public Relations/Marketing Department: 04030100 - SL-COUNSELING & WELLNESS CTR

Advertised: 23 Aug 2024 Eastern Daylight Time Applications close: 27 Sep 2024 Eastern Daylight Time

Back to search results Apply now Refer a friend

Search results

Current Opportunities

Powered by PageUp

Refine search

• Student Ast 1
• Communications/Public Relations/Marketing 1
• Main Campus (Gainesville, FL) 1
• 04030100 - SL-COUNSELING & WELLNESS CTR 1
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Veteran Preference
• Applicant Tutorial
• UF Hiring Policies
• Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics
• Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Faculty Positions
• Labor Condition Application (ETA Form 9035): Notice of Filings
• Application for Permanent Employment Certification (ETA Form 9089): Notice of Job Availability
• Search Committee Public Meeting Notices
• Accessibility at UF
• Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Program (DAAPP)
• Drug-Free Workplace

Equal Opportunity Employer

The University is committed to non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations, genetic information and veteran status in all aspects of employment including recruitment, hiring, promotions, transfers, discipline, terminations, wage and salary administration, benefits, and training.

We will email you new jobs that match this search.

Ok, we will send you jobs like this.

The email address was invalid, please check for errors.

You must agree to the privacy statement

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Recruiters and Academia
• Published: 10 May 2006

What makes a good PhD student?

• Georgia Chenevix-Trench 1  

Nature volume  441 ,  page 252 ( 2006 ) Cite this article

26k Accesses

12 Citations

49 Altmetric

Metrics details

Some tips for PhD students.

Doing a PhD should be fun and rewarding, because you can spend all your working time discovering things and pursuing ideas — and getting paid for it, without any administrative responsibilities. Those who stick with a career in science do so because, despite the relatively poor pay, long hours and lack of security, it is all we want to do.

Unfortunately most new PhD students are ill-prepared, and as a consequence very few will fulfil their aspirations to be independent scientists. The main reasons for this are the 'grade creep' inherent at most universities, making it difficult to identify the really talented first-class graduates from the rest, and the pressure on universities to graduate as many PhD students as possible. The consequence is that we enrol far too many of them without telling them clearly what doing a doctorate should entail. We therefore set ourselves, and the students, on a path of frustration and disappointment.

So what should we be telling prospective PhD students?

Choose a supervisor whose work you admire and who is well supported by grants and departmental infrastructure.

Take responsibility for your project.

Work hard — long days all week and part of most weekends. If research is your passion this should be easy, and if it isn't, you are probably in the wrong field. Note who goes home with a full briefcase to work on at the end of the day. This is a cause of success, not a consequence.

Take some weekends off, and decent holidays, so you don't burn out.

Read the literature in your immediate area, both current and past, and around it. You can't possibly make an original contribution to the literature unless you know what is already there.

Plan your days and weeks carefully to dovetail experiments so that you have a minimum amount of downtime.

Keep a good lab book and write it up every day.

Be creative. Think about what you are doing and why, and look for better ways to go. Don't see your PhD as just a road map laid out by your supervisor.

Develop good writing skills: they will make your scientific career immeasurably easier.

To be successful you must be at least four of the following: smart, motivated, creative, hard-working, skilful and lucky. You can't depend on luck, so you had better focus on the others!

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

principal research fellow at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston, Australia

Georgia Chenevix-Trench

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

→ http://www.qimr.edu.au/research/labs/georgiat/Guideforphds.doc

Related links

Related external links.

Guide for PhDs

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Chenevix-Trench, G. What makes a good PhD student?. Nature 441 , 252 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7090-252b

Download citation

Published : 10 May 2006

Issue Date : 11 May 2006

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7090-252b

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Look who's talking too: graduates developing skills through communication.

• Eleni M. Tomazou
• Gareth T. Powell

Nature Reviews Genetics (2007)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

‘Time poverty’ can keep college students from graduating − especially if they have jobs or children to care for

Professor of Urban Education, CUNY Graduate Center

Disclosure statement

Claire Wladis receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

View all partners

Many college students don’t have enough time for their studies. This “ time poverty ,” as we call it, is often due to inadequate child care access or the need to work to pay for college and living expenses.

In an effort to understand how much time poverty affects student outcomes, we surveyed more than 41,000 U.S. college students. We found that the more time poverty, the greater the chances of a student earning fewer credits or dropping out . This is especially true for Black and Hispanic students and for women, who have significantly less time for college compared with their peers, largely due to time spent on their jobs and caring for children.

Our research describes how differences in time available for college are often the result of structural inequities in higher education, such as insufficient financial aid for students who have children or who have to work to pay the bills.

Why it matters

Time poverty explains major differences in student outcomes. In one study, students who dropped out of college had on average nine fewer hours per week available for college than those who did not drop out. And students who earned over 12 credits in a term had on average 18 more hours per week available for college than students who earned only six credits or less. Thus, student outcomes are highly correlated with available time for academics.

Often, there are gaps in college credit attainment between students from different racial or ethnic groups or by gender. However, those gaps shrink significantly – or disappear altogether – when we compare students with similar time available for college. This shows just how important time is as a resource for finishing a college degree.

Time poverty also leads to overwork, which can cause burnout. For example, Black women had the least time for college of any group . Compared with the group with the most time – Asian and Pacific Islander men – Black women had on average 24 fewer hours per week to devote to their studies. However, both groups spent the same amount of time on college.

How is this possible?

Black, Hispanic and women students sacrificed an even greater proportion of their free time – time left over after paid work, housework and child care – on college than their peers. The average total time Black women spent on college as well as paid and unpaid work was 75 hours per week, or equivalent to more than two full-time jobs.

Our findings show that this holds true for all students. On average, the more time-poor they are, the more free time they sacrifice for their studies.

This sacrifice comes at a cost: Students must give up time spent on sleep, meals, health care, leisure and exercise to make time for college. This is particularly worrisome because overwork has been linked to negative impacts on mental and physical health .

In prior research, my colleagues and I have also found that students who are parents – particularly mothers – and students who choose to take online courses have less time available for college than their peers. This explains differences in academic outcomes. Time poverty affects students from many different groups, yet existing college policies, practices and structures rarely take it into account.

What’s next?

Even though nearly 1 in 4 current undergraduates have children , the availability of on-campus child care has been shrinking for decades , and child care costs are not automatically included in financial aid. Student-parents also have to work extra hours to pay for their children’s living expenses, which are not covered by federal financial aid .

Even for students without children, financial aid rarely covers actual expenses. Federal financial need calculations often underestimate actual need , especially for students with lower socioeconomic status or more family responsibilities. Current federal financial aid meets the needs of only 35.7% of U.S. undergraduates . Accordingly, most U.S. students have to work to pay for college, taking away time that would likely be better spent studying.

Providing students with enough financial aid to enroll in college, but not enough to complete college, is counterproductive. Providing students with enough time – and thus money – for college is therefore not only a sound investment but also critical to honoring the values of fairness and opportunity for all.

• Higher education
• educational outcomes

Head of Evidence to Action

Supply Chain - Assistant/Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Education Research Fellow

OzGrav Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Casual Facilitator: GERRIC Student Programs - Arts, Design and Architecture

University of Waterloo Graduate Scholarship

Award type: Scholarships

Award description: The University of Waterloo Graduate Scholarship, normally valued at $1,000 per term for up to three terms, is awarded to graduate students registered full time in a Master's or Doctoral program at the University of Waterloo. Eligible students must have a minimum first-class (80%) cumulative average in their current program or over the last two full-time academic years and be within the time limits of their graduate program. No application is required, graduate departments will nominate eligible students automatically based on their allocation of funds. 

Value description: Normally a minimum of $1,000 per term for up to three terms (value and duration may vary, depending on other funding the student may be receiving).

• Domestic and international graduate students registered full time in a Master's or Doctoral program.
• Minimum first-class (80%) cumulative average in the current program or over the last two full-time academic years required.
• Must be within the time limits of the program.
• No application is required. Departments will nominate students automatically based on their allocation of funds.

Level: Masters, Doctoral Program:

• Open to any program

Citizenship: Canadian/Permanent resident, International/study permit student Selection process: Student selected automatically by Faculty/Department

Contact person:

Department Graduate Co-ordinator

• Canadian/Permanent resident ,
• International/study permit student ,
• Student selected automatically by Faculty/Department ,
• Conrad Grebel University College ,
• Faculty of Arts ,
• Faculty of Engineering ,
• Faculty of Environment ,
• Faculty of Health ,
• Faculty of Mathematics ,
• Faculty of Science ,
• Renison University College ,
• St. Jerome’s University ,
• United College