|
|
|
|
|
|
by hycaria
2521 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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?