Ask HN: Should I quit graduate school to avoid a bad advisor?

[throwaway2439]

I am eager to quit but I feel like I might need to be on good relations with him, otherwise, he won't leave a good word in for me for anyone who contacts him as a reference. I don't have many references because, I'm in graduate school. Let's just say quitting in anyway would not be good for our relationship given his personality.

I could suck it up for three more years (granted I graduate in three, he's not the best at science or getting us funding, he's mostly a politician) and it's too late to switch groups without wasting an additional 3 years. Sticking with it seems like my best option right now, unless I am wrong and I do have other options.

[GlueChemist]

I am set to finish my PhD in organic chemistry in about 6 months... I could go on for a while but, in retrospect it seems like a pretty huge mistake. (I love it and the work, but the bills are coming due, and going into the post-doc or adjunct prof pool seems like a high risk gamble to me.)

You seem to be at a point that is just about halfway. Can you master out? (you can likely apply to a different program with a masters if you really want the PhD.) You also mention that he is bad at science and funding, but good a politicing. So unless you want to be a raging socialite, it does not seem he has much to offer you.

If you do stick with it -- network heavily! This was my biggest mistake, and seems to have put a real damper on any future prospects. My other mistake was believing that STEM shortage garbage, so make sure that the degree has some actual value. Otherwise you may find yourself teaching yourself programming and looking at job threads on HN.

Good luck!

In short: probably.

[ColinWright]

Added in edit: Assuming it's not possible to change advisor ...

You have to make a decision: Quit, or take control of your own education and finish.

You will need your supervisor to deal with the administrative aspects of your degree, so you can't avoid him entirely. However, you can limit your contact with him to that role alone. However, you will need someone to supervise your academic requirements.

So you need to find someone with whom you can talk about your work, and possibly with whom you can collaborate. A supervisor suggests problems to work on, suggests material to read and understand, monitors that you're working hard enough, checks on your progress, and if your progress isn't adequate, suggests modifications to the current schedule/scheme of work.

You will need to do almost all of that yourself, or find someone else to collaborate with to accomplish those academic aspects. But it can be done, and if you succeed it becomes a major, major accomplishment on your CV.

But you really need to take control.

Or quit.

[shoyer]

> But it can be done, and if you succeed it becomes a major, major accomplishment on your CV.

I agree with your advice except for this line. To be clear, a Ph.D does count as a "major, major accomplishment on your CV" (at least to the right audience). But you won't get any extra credit for putting up with a bad adviser.

I am tempted to simply advise quitting, but switching to another adviser (or even sticking it out) could also make sense. It depends on how exactly your adviser is bad, and whether you could honestly expect another Ph.D. adviser to be significantly better. Actual abuse is one thing, but benign neglect and a "sink or swim" attitude are pretty typical attitudes. If the problem is that your adviser is just focused on raising funds and doesn't have much time or inclination to help you on your research, then you can't expect any better if you roll the dice another time.

Also - what field are you in? What are your career goals? Most people with Ph.Ds don't end up in jobs that require them. If you think you'll be dropping out of academia in three years anyways (and there's no shame in that), then there really is little reason to stick it out for three more years of suffering, regardless of the whys.

[ColinWright]

    > I agree with your advice except for this
    > line ... you won't get any extra credit
    > for putting up with a bad adviser.

The value doesn't lie in putting up with a bad advisor, it lies in taking control and organising things. It lies in being in a bad situation and devising a plan to deal with it. It lies in solving a problem, accomplishing a goal, despite starting from a poor situation.

The value is in having proof that you can manage your resources and create a positive outcome.

Since several people are saying the same thing I'll add my response here:

Yes, absolutely, probably not actually the thing to put on your CV. Bu anyone who values a PhD in a candidate will appreciate the comment "As it happens I didn't get along with my supervisor, just personal chemistry as it happens, but I overcame that by taking control." I believe that for most people who knows about PhDs that is actually worth something.

To the original poster - people disagree with me, and that's worth considering. I could be wrong.

[Bartweiss]

The problem, though, is that it's not the sort of positive outcome you can put on a CV or otherwise use professionally. You simply can't badmouth an advisor, which is part of the "look what I overcame" narrative. Without that you'll either be "just another PhD", or to people who know the advisor, "a PhD from that jerk". The latter might get you sympathy or antipathy, and the former will get you nothing special.

None of this to say it's not an impressive achievement, or an educational one. But in the professional sphere, it's not proof of any of those positive traits - they'll still need to be demonstrated elsewhere to trade on them.

[bllguo]

It's a big achievement, of course. But on your CV? No. I fail to see how you could convey the lengths you went to in dealing with a bad adviser in a brief, tactful way on a CV. Nor would I want to; seems like it could easily backfire.

[chestervonwinch]

Exactly. Replace "advisor" with "boss", and see how it works out. It might be a good life experience for the OP, but putting it on a CV? No way. I wouldn't even mention in conversation the true explanation for quitting or switching advisors, unless it were a close friend who was genuinely interested in hearing the details --- for anyone else, a generic, "we had different artistic visions".

[ludamad]

Assuming you want to even draw attention to it. Having a decent thesis is probably enough

[JSeymourATL]

> I don't have many references because, I'm in graduate school.

You don't need the bad advisor, move on. References are completely over-rated. Still, companies ask for references as some sort of social proof. Curate an alternate list of 3-5 individuals, (old supervisors, employers, senior colleagues, club officers, etc...) these are people who can vouch for you and the quality of your work.

If some one asks specifically for your advisor contact, be candid-- 'we didn't have much of a relationship and don't think he is best placed to comment on my abilities'.

[dexwiz]

To add to that, many professionals will not get a recommendation beyond, "Yes, they worked here." And many recruiters do not look for anything beyond that. There are a whole host of reasons to not give out positive or negative reviews. Most of them related to potential legal issues. Also a neutral review can often be interpreted as a polite negative review if a positive review was given in the past from the same reference about a different person.

This article has more details:

http://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/your-former-employees-want-...

[giltleaf]

Woah, interesting article. The perils of a litigious society geez.

[heckless]

I recently finished my PhD and had a terrible relationship with my "advisor"---who left part of the way through to start a startup doing the exact same thing he had brought me on to do (except I was not invited). I don't have any continuing contact with him and I certainly don't list him as a reference on my CV (nor did he help me make any useful connections before he ditched his lab group). In a difficult situation like that, what kept me going as what amounted to a self-advised graduate student for almost five years was that I enjoyed the work I was doing. If that intrinsic motivation was not there, I would not have finished---or if I had, it would not have been very meaningful: why get a PhD studying something I wasn't fully enjoying and engaged by?

I have watched enough graduate students "stick with it" non-enthusiastically and it doesn't usually work out well. I hate to be black-and-white, and I don't think it's as black-and-white as I'm about to put it, but either you love the work and nothing can keep you from it (or something close to that), or you should leave the PhD program (and there's nothing wrong with that!). I think PhDs do not really made to reward folks who don't fully enjoy the work they are doing, because often the post-graduation prospects are "pay a big price to keep doing your research" or "do something else".

Granted, I don't know much of your situation, so take the advice for what it's worth, but I hope that what I've written here is helpful.

[lvs]

I've been through this. Actually I was well-supported by my department and switched groups even later than that -- too late if you ask anyone. When you're motivated and on the right project, you can do a PhD in only a couple of years. Grad school can be extremely inefficient, and we all know that.

The larger question is whether you need a PhD to do what you want in the world. But don't get too down on academia because of one bad advisor. (There are many better reasons!)

Edit: To your political question, my old boss and I don't talk by design. I've found much better supporters since then, and some bridges should be burned. Your boss may seem like your whole world right now, but that's mostly Stockholm syndrome talking. There are many supportive people -- you just have to ask around.

[regrettablephd]

[Without the benefit of both sides of the story, am assuming the advisor is truly bad.]

I was in your shoes, and I didn't leave my advisor. I greatly regret that. I stayed because I felt ethically obliged to, and because I am non-confrontational. I made a big mistake. Even trying to change advisors (within the same university) seemed awkward. And it would indeed have been too awkward and difficult to pull off. I should have just quit.

Five years from now, each of your present-day years will seem much more valuable than it does now. One of your years now has much more leverage now than it will five years from now. Do not waste years on a bad advisor. It sounds like this is the perfect time -- you say you expect another 3 years, which suggests you're 2 or 3 years in right now. One more year, and your identity will get too strongly coupled with your advisor's.

If you're in CS and taking up a CS job, there will not be an expectation of a reference from your advisor, if you can position these 3 years as an extended Masters. Get other references, and be honest but diplomatic about your advisor if asked.

[sohamsankaran]

Switch advisers or quit. Everyone I know who's ever done different in this situation has regretted it. 3 years of the prime of your life is worth a whole lot more than a middling recommendation letter.

[lisper]

> it's too late to switch groups without wasting an additional 3 years

Question this assumption.

There's something that you might not be aware of: you are a valuable resource to your advisor. The Ph.D. students he graduates go on his CV. Somewhere out there is an associate professor for whom graduating an additional student could be the difference between getting tenure and not. Find that person and negotiate a better situation for yourself.

[fastaguy88]

This conversation might be more helpful if you had it with other faculty, particularly the Director of Graduate Studies, in your department. In general, Departments want their graduate students to graduate (statistics on graduation rate are used to justify training grants), and to be successful in their later careers. And Director's of Graduate Studies have a useful historical perspective; they may know that your advisor has had a history of problems, or that your situation is unusual and bears looking into.

There are almost certainly resources in your Department to support you and help you with your decision. You should explore them.

You should also understand that you can ask for letters from other people in your department, in particular from your thesis committee. While it is not ideal, it is not unheard of for students to provide letters that do not include their advisor. The more you interact with other faculty, the better in your situation.

[jib]

3 years of anything is not worth a reference. Doesn't matter what.

You should figure out what is best for you, and do that. Without being you, I think it will be hard for people to give any advice other than don't worry about recommendations/perceptions. This isn't about that guy, it's about what you want to do.

Whether that is asking for a transfer, work on your relationship with the guy, stopping altogether or not, that's something you'll have to figure out, but it is about you, not about your adviser.

[eob]

You're making the assumption that quitting would burn the bridge but my guess is that might not be so. Bosses of course don't like when they lose an employee but it's also not the end of the world.

My best piece of advice is to decide what you want (not what you believe others want of you) and then explain you've made your decision to your advisor in a way that is final, but also authentic and showing compassion for your understanding of their situation.

[freyir]

You don't mention (a) your reason for pursuing a PhD / what you plan to do after grad school, (b) what you've achieved so far in the past 3 years, or (c) your field of study. Without at least that information, it would be very difficult for anybody to advise you here.

> I don't have many references because, I'm in graduate school.

That's not a valid reason. Networking takes work, and you should start now. I can't stress that enough.

> he won't leave a good word in for me for anyone who contacts him as a reference

If he's as bad as you say, his reference might not carry a lot of weight anyway. If you're set on pursuing an academic career, moving to a professor who does good science and has a good reputation might be worth another couple years in the long run.

> it's too late to switch groups without wasting an additional 3 years

In my experience, this isn't necessarily true. You may find an advisor who won't completely ignore the work you've already done (unless you have nothing to show for the last three years). Some people here advise you to meet with other professors and "explain the situation." Be extremely careful how you explain the situation, and don't disparage your current advisor.

[ISL]

Academic references are probably of greatest import in an academic setting. Industrial hires generally care about what you can do for them, not what you've done in the past.

In addition to HN as an advice/support group, consider looking around within your department and peer group. Chatting with other professors may yield useful insights (and provide a back-channel communique to your advisor). It's fine to continue working (and doing good work) for your advisor while you aggressively network for other options.

As I tell every student I work with in Physics; do it for love. If you don't love it, other things are probably more worth your time.

[arcanus]

> I could suck it up for three more years

I would be very hesitant to assume you will be 'out in three'. Unless you are actively discussing graduation, 3 years might as well be \infty, in graduate school-land.

[impendia]

I am a professor at a Ph.D.-granting mathematics department in the US, so I can speak for the "other side".

Please, please do NOT suck it up for three years just because you are afraid of pissing off your advisor. That isn't worth three years of your life. Hell, it isn't worth three days of it.

If you were seeking a postdoc then, yes, a rec letter from your advisor would be absolutely required. But I presume you intend to seek non-academic employment? In that case a letter from another faculty member who knows you (and who knows your work) would fit the bill.

If you have an alternative career path in mind, why not apply for jobs now (i.e., without quitting)? If you find one to your liking, then you shouldn't care whether or not your advisor gets angry. If you don't find a job, or don't yet know in which field you would like to work, you can bide your time while you do some research on the job market.

[noahtovares]

I was recently in this position, chose to leave my program, and did my best to leave on good terms. Ultimately the relationship with my advisor soured.

I believe the most important question to ask is whether you will be happy for the next 3 or more years continuing to work under your advisor. You should be fine without a letter of rec. from your advisor.

[giardini]

If this is for a Ph.D. you likely should leave for other reasons. To understand why I say this, navigate to

"Career Guide for Engineers and Computer Scientists" by Philip Greenspun

http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/

Examine the graph at the bottom of that page.

[chrisseaton]

As the page says, it isn't serious. But more than that there isn't even an ounce of truth in it, so I don't see what the joke is at all.

Computer science has many extremely well paying, and simultaneously satisfying and intellectually rewarding jobs, for PhDs in industry.

There are some more serious articles linked above the silly graph, but they're not about computer science, and they're not about this decade.

[dnautics]

the crazy thing is while I agree with your statement about CS PhDs, the greenspun article really hit home (I'm a chem PhD). In chem and bio, there's a lot of pressure to get hands on a project, so more students are trained than there are jobs for them when things get out. There's even a term for this "postdocapalypse". We don't know what field OP is in.

[blastrat]

I don't know what options are available to you for psychotherapy, but whenever I tell myself things like you are telling yourself, that's what I need. There are many hurdles to getting a PhD and then there are more hurdles to becoming a professor; your professor has surmounted all these hurdles, you have have surmounted some of them; in all probability there is much you can learn from him. Psychotherapy helps you learn to manage your own feelings about it.

You like your field and you have progressed quite a bit further than most people ever do, you are a success so far. I'd like to see you not give up at this stage. Life includes dealing with people we don't like, you can learn to deal with this.

My advice, at least give it a try before you make such a momentous decision.

[kemiller2002]

If you think you are wasting your time, you need to leave. Three years is a long time to spend on something where you see little benefit. The question you have to ask yourself is: "What are you going to do with your degree after you graduate?" If your answer is, "I don't know," then it's probably time to quit and form another plan, and it really sounds like this is possibly the case. If you aren't learning from your adviser, that's three years of you falling behind all the other candidates who you are going to compete with to get the job you want.

Realistically consider for a moment how many people graduate with an advanced degree in your field vs. how many jobs there actually are.

[microDude]

Find a different advisor now (possibly at a different school). One that has a proven track record of graduating students (which sounds hollow, but think of it this way, would MIT be a good school if only 50% of their students found jobs after graduation?).

There is a point where your advisor will look at you as a failure and give up on their responsibility of tutelage. Most of the time, this is not the students fault (assuming that you are hardworking and proposing your own ideas). Most likely, the advisor is putting undo burden upon you (does he have a history of pushing out students?). Saying that you have 3 years left is not true, since the advisor can hold you in servitude much longer with little recourse.

[bluenose69]

You begin by saying you're eager to quit, so I will take that as your true desire, and those first five words are enough to advise you to quit. Nothing in your query suggests that you are enjoying the work or look forward to continuing in the field. Given the negative sentiment and the lack of positive sentiments, the case seems quite clear. Quit, and get on with your life. Chalk the past three years up to experience, and set about enjoying the next three years and the years after. Life is short, after all. Find the thing you love and are good at, and don't worry about the fact that you didn't finish this PhD.

[BDGC]

I switched advisors in my fourth year of a neuroscience PhD. I distinctly recall wondering if it was worth burning 2+ years in a different lab for an experience that might not be better. For me, switching labs was 100% the right decision. I'm still in science, love what I do, and I'm glad I changed even if it was "too late."

Try to distance yourself a little to get perspective. Even from a one week vacation, a month in a collaborator's lab, anything to try to remove yourself and then re-evaluate. Your advisory committee can also help, once you articulate that you're considering leaving.

[sijoe]

Mine was in theoretical physics. I liked my advisor and the work. But she wasn't a go-getter on grant writing, or on paper writing.

Many of my friends left and went to medical physics. I thought of it, but decided against it.

This was 20+ years ago.

In hindsight, it was a mistake (for me) not to do this.

First off: There is no shortage of PhDs to fill tenure track ranks, and there are precious few tenure track ranks available. Unless you are at a top school, with a really special advisor, and your work is getting attention, you should assume that academe is not in your future.

Yes, I know this is harsh. I wish someone had said these words to me in 1992-1994.

Second: The magic of a PhD is that it is a union card for some jobs, and a good way to open other doors. But know that the time you spend doing it, is time you spend away from economic productive life.

Has my now 20+ year old PhD been a boon to my career? I don't know how to answer this. It conveys (via a mal-advised appeal to assumed authority) some intelligence. And maybe it gets me better bargaining ability. Or maybe not. Maybe it typecasts me. I don't have enough data to know.

What I do know is, given the benefit of hindsight, I would have done very different things.

Third: You always have options, and you always have choices. You need to ask, and answer, a very hard question for yourself. Specifically, what do you want to do with your life? And even if you don't have a hard answer, which is fine, a roughly general sense of what you want to do is a good thing.

I decided after seeing the FSU collapse, and the market flooded with fairly senior FSU physicists, that I would focus on learning to be an entrepreneur and business guy. I like working with, and building, supercomputers, and it turned out there was at least some demand there at the time.

You need to ask yourself these sorts of questions, and you know, its ok to answer "I don't know". But take the time to figure out what makes you happy. Because YOLO, and its better not to waste time doing something that you won't be happy doing and not making any living doing it.

[jahewson]

You should try to find a new advisor. Try seeking out other potential advisors in the department for advice on your work. Work through some task with them and if you have a good rapport, schedule another meeting with them and explain the situation. Maybe you can pivot your work in a direction that suits their expertise better.

It might be that you don't need a new advisor as much as a mentor or co-advisor from your department. That might be an easier solution politically.

Universities deal with lots of problems all the time. Figure out who the right person is to reach out to and seek them out.

[blackguardx]

I had a really bad advisor and bailed out of my Ph.D program with a masters degree. I don't regret it, although in hindsight, I recognize there were things I could have done to salvage my Ph.D. program. The main thing would have been to switch advisors. Is that possible for you?

[quantumhobbit]

Is graduating in 3 years garunteed? I was in a similar position, advisor pretty much checked out which would have made graduating nearly impossible.

I managed ok after quitting, I found a job which didn't go after references too aggressively.

I don't know what to say other than good luck.

[sjg007]

I would switch advisors or leave. Also ask yourself if you really need a PHD. This is all in retrospect since I was in your situation and I tried to make it work and ended up leaving eventually anyway.

Decide what is right for you, be authentic, regardless of your advisor.

[pbreit]

I get the sense that the issue might be you. I would first work on a major attitude adjustment. You're going to run into people that are difficult to get along with. It's useful to be able to make those situations work.

[rubidium]

What field? What's your career hopes (teaching, research, industry)?

[raincom]

If you don't want to stick in the academia, why worry about the reference from your advisor. Just move on, as simple as that.

[jmount]

Hard question. Additional issue: do you think this advisor would support you if you were to graduate?

[toomim]

I was in the same situation. Quit.