[adamsmith143]

>Why do you want to work for someone else, on their hours, answerable to them, doing their research and teaching their classes, instead of working on your own research?

Did you actually do a PhD? You ought to know that you are completely beholden to your advisor, what they want you to work on, what papers they want you to write, the classes they want you to take etc.

As an employee you actually have rights, benefits and fairer pay and are under basically identical working circumstances.

[chrisseaton]

> what they want you to work on, what papers they want you to write, the classes they want you to take etc

This isn't my experience.

A PhD is supposed to be your own research, not your advisor's.

[adamsmith143]

Anecdotes aren't very useful but in my department it was pretty clear that most of your work was going to be derivative of your advisors at least tangentially if not directly.

Also I think the article and most of the discussion so far has been around experiences in the US' PhD system so I'm not sure experience in the UK is equivalent.

[bunbunbun]

Yeah, it is supposed to be that in theory. But in practice, I had to be trained through multiple research positions doing work for other people, none of whom had managerial experience or training. It was very chaotic and I rarely had time to work on my own research until dissertation.

[Fomite]

A PhD should be, at least in theory. Whether it is or not is a question - and "until dissertation" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

Importantly, a staff scientist position will never be. If you cannot tie your project to one of my grants, you are losing me money. For a student, that might be acceptable. For a staff scientist, it's not.

[bunbunbun]

That’s the way it works and will probably always work. Profit, prestige, and power are the driving factors, even for the most equity-minded individuals.