[lvice]

I believe that abuse is more common in academia.

A relationship between a supervisor and his direct reports, both in academia and industry, is impacted by the power that the supervisor can exert. The relationship between a supervisor and his PhD students is not the same as a manager and his direct reports in industry because:

- The students are invested and committed into their PhDs for several years. It is much harder to change path or mentor compared to just change jobs. The energy and resources that the student needs to invest to apply a change are significantly higher, often involving moving to a different city.

- The reward of a job is, for the most part, the monthly paycheck. A PhD is a long-term investment that must be completed in order to have value. An employee that quits a job after one year is not an issue, and it is considered "experience", but quitting a PhD half way through can be perceived as a failure.

- Professors in academia have almost unlimited decision power in how they manage their budget and their reports. It can almost feels like an absolute monarchy.

- This may be anecdotal, but I feel like the role of professor in academia can attract people with larger egos and smaller empathy, especially in scientific subjects.

All of these points, combined with a bad supervisor, are fantastic fuel for anxiety and unhappiness. There is no worse thing that, after so much work, feeling that you have no control over your situation and you have no margin to improve it, without significant additional sacrifices.

[phdonewiththis]

Thank you for this perspective.

There is no worse thing that, after so much work, feeling that you have no control over your situation and you have no margin to improve it, without significant additional sacrifices.

This crystallizes how I feel, and how many of my peers feel. We're all going to escape with our degrees, but many of the problems that arose because of the points you mentioned are completely unnecessary -- we can drive science forward and train the next generation of researchers without subjecting them to this.

[xtracto]

This rings true. I would only add a comment I heard someone say: a PhD is not an investment. It is an expense. If you want to invest in your education do an MBA or get certificates. Those are investments that will pay off later. A PhD is an expense you pay to do whatever research you want to.

On the student lock to the PhD it may also be because students get scholarships. In my case my government gave be a scholarship to do the PhD. And at some point during the degree I pondered whether to continue, but I couldn't have stopped because I then would have to return the money I spent, which of course I didn't have. My supervisors were great. But one can imagine the pressure of having shitty supervisors on top of that.

[jkhdigital]

> a PhD is not an investment. It is an expense.

I... don’t see how one could make this statement and actually believe it. Food and housing are an expense. Healthcare is an expense. A PhD is an arduous and deeply personal journey to push the limits of your field and your own intellectual capabilities. If you see it as an “expense” then I believe you are doing it wrong.

[lvice]

I see xtracto's point. You are "paying" to pursue a PhD in the form of missed additional revenue that you could have achieved by starting in the industry earlier on. Or pursue other paths that could be more industry-focused (MBA). It's an intellectual investment, sure. But for most PhDs, it will be a net negative on the financial side, and a potential hyper-specialization trap for moving to the private/industry sector.

[ghaff]

I see the point though I'm not sure that's any different from going to art school or music school or even an undergraduate degree in something like film that will probably only pay off if you win the professional lottery. But I don't disagree that getting a PhD isn't likely to pay off purely from a financial perspective even in many hot technology areas.

[cycomanic]

I think you have a couple of common misconceptions. I'm not saying they necessarily change your conclusions, but they should be pointed out nonetheless.

>- The reward of a job is, for the most part, the monthly paycheck. A PhD is a long-term investment that must be completed in order to have value. An employee that quits a job after one year is not an issue, and it is considered "experience", but quitting a PhD half way through can be perceived as a failure.

Several people already mentioned "you can just quit your job". I think this is with a limited view of software developers. Yes, if you are a software developer the job market is such that you can easily quit. The situation might be completely different in some other fields, and loosing the job can be a much more existential threat.

>- Professors in academia have almost unlimited decision power in how they manage their budget and their reports. It can almost feels like an absolute monarchy.

I don't know the situation in the US, but I can tell you that in the countries I know about this is simply not the case. The amount of bureaucracy that you have to jump through to spend money as a professor (often money that you brought into the university through grants) is mindboggling. I know junior staff in industry who have more power to make buying decisions than professors. I know at one university every purchase over $50000 had to be signed off by the dean of the faculty (this was maybe 500-1000 staff and 30 000 students) over $150000 it had to go to the president. For anything bought by a professor, even low dollar amounts, it had to be signed off by the head of department. Hiring (PhD students, or even interns) needs to be approved by HR ...

>All of these points, combined with a bad supervisor, are fantastic fuel for anxiety and unhappiness. There is no worse thing that, after so much work, feeling that you have no control over your situation and you have no margin to improve it, without significant additional sacrifices.

While bad supervisors are definitely a thing, generally the PhD is a situation which can be fantastic fuel for anxiety and unhappiness. You work on something that you are responsible for, which is not guaranteed to work and coming to the end of your time, you might realise you don't have enough to show. In many way it can be very similar to starting a business, there can be incredible highs, but also incredible lows.

[mattkrause]

Recommendation letters from specific people play an outsized role in academia: without a strong letter from your advisor, it's difficult to move onto new positions or acquire funding, even after you've been gone a while. Other industries don't seem to have that sort of long-term lock-in. If they check at all, references from any of several people (colleagues, tech lead, anyone in your management chain) at your most recent employer are usually fine.

You're right about the bureaucracy, which can be crazy in the US and Canada too. However, it really only extends to spending money; there's much less oversight when it comes to running the lab (e.g., working hours, productivity expectations, conduct, etc). You might think that firing has as much oversight as hiring, but postdocs are often structured as short, renewable contracts and you can just....not renew them.