[kire456]

> Yeah stuff like that happen, have and will, (...) good luck fighting that

Fatalism like the kind you suggest adds nothing to the discussion, and indeed to the academic community. It allows bad actors to keep acting badly. An article like this might motivate someone in power to examine whether this kind of conduct occurs in their institution. I don't know about you, but I see a positive expected value.

And I am not sure what you mean by the other side of the story. She has positive feedback from another supervisor, if the article is to be believed, so isn't the probable explanation a difference of personalities? And is there really any non-pride-or-ego-related reason to try and prevent someone not just from working with you, but in the wider community of which you are part? I can not interpret that behaviour in any way other than malice.

[hycaria]

Well if you cut part of the sentence, of course it sounds fatalist, but that refered to the specific part where people talk and use phones to the same extend of giving honest, confidential feedback. And you'll eventually have no spur of those discussions. And bad students will still be spoken of, as luckily do bad advisors.

Please don't tweak sentences to make them fit to whatever discourse you want.

As for the second paragraph, between a freshly graduated PhD and advisors there is still a long way. I hardly see them competing for the same spots. Sure there are probably wicked minds that would try to evict geniuses, but said geniuses would be picked up by less egoistic people (that are luckily way more common).

Rivalry is a thing in academics of course, but from advisors towards their own phds ? There's no stake there for an advisor, but preventing a bad element trained in your team to cast a bad light on you.

[kire456]

Your entire first paragraph as written conveys that the situation can not be changed, and the victim must change themself. This, in my opinion, is fatalist.

Please clarify what you mean if you find you have been misunderstood instead of getting angry and assuming malice.

I know several people in my tiny part of academia alone, whose eminence is well established, and who would not much change this by telling colleagues a certain individual is impossible to work with. I agree that it would take a vindictive mind to do so, but I am asking you to explain the facts any other way:

> Firstly, my eminent and influential PhD supervisor had let it be widely known that they thought I was an unpleasant person, impossible to work with, fundamentally stupid, and that I definitely shouldn’t be doing a doctorate.

I know no decent people who would say this about someone in a professional setting, let alone write it down and send it to many people. Also, no honest assessment of someone's academic skills can include the words "fundamentally stupid" if they are able to get into a PhD program, right?

[solidasparagus]

Who you recommend is a reflection on you. If the author is actually difficult to work with and a colleague asks you about the author, not giving an honest answer has negative consequences on your professional reputation.

It doesn't seem like malice to me, particularly since the author seems quite dislikeable based on their article.