|
|
|
|
|
|
by voxl
2129 days ago
|
|
|
I think your perspective is very pragmatic and reasonable. However, I think it still highlights only the _worst_ kinds of advisers, and if we're talking about looking out for your own self interests, then picking a good adviser is your highest priority. There are two kinds of advisers I think are missing in your analysis. First, are the idealists, the probably newly minted professors who view there students fondly and their mentorship responsibilities very seriously. These are bad for you too, because you need to be pushed to obtain results on occasion, you can't always have someone who is feeling guilty about their own efforts and not being straight with you about your weakness. Second, is, in my opinion, the ideal adviser. One who views the relationship as an apprenticeship more so then a manager/employee or mentor/mentee. An apprentice has to learn the craft, but they're still producing work for the artisan (adviser). If the student fucks something up they need to be told, because learning the craft is the highest priority. The "manager" type of adviser is in my opinion the worst. A good manager is only a useful adviser if a PhD is otherwise a waste of time for you anyway (because you already can do research). Moreover, most manager-types are bad at being managers as well, compounding the horrible situation. |
|
|
My advisor was definitely one of the "idealists". I was his first graduate student. He always treated me well, with respect and reasonable expectations, and we are friends to this day. He did have some of the weaknesses you mention. He looked out for me as well as could reasonably be expected, but he did occasionally throw me to the wolves if the stakes were high enough -- for example, if we had a collaborator who was giving us substantial money, and they asked me to do the impossible or the unreasonable, he'd tell me to grin and bear it, and do my best, rather than informing the collaborator about reality.
In short, he was way above average, but still, his interests and mine occasionally came into conflict. But it can get so much worse -- I have seen numerous graduate students and postdocs absolutely exploited (department chairs and big shots are the most frequent offenders), and the most vulnerable targets were always those who assumed that we are all but brothers-in-arms in the great Scientific Enterprise.
What I mean to say is that even if a grad student lucks into or intelligently selects a good advisor, idealism is still a problem because as your collaborations and career expand, the probability approaches 1 that you will run into someone who will absolutely exploit you if given the chance. Someone who has enough leverage on an otherwise good advisor can also exploit a student by proxy. Students should be prepared for this inevitability.
In my view, when we read a document like the OP, what we are mainly getting is a window into how a PI likes to view himself -- i.e., the benevolent master lovingly and altruistically shepherding his apprentices into independence -- rather than any relevant form of reality. I'm sure OP came by this delusion honestly, but one of the primary qualifications to become a PI is the ability to spin, and no one is easier to spin than oneself.