bad phd experience

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Of monsters and mentors: PhD disasters, and how to avoid them

Despite all that’s been done to improve doctoral study, horror stories keep coming. here three students relate phd nightmares while two academics advise on how to ensure a successful supervision.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

For all the efforts in recent years to improve the doctoral experience for students, Times Higher Education still receives a steady supply of horror stories from PhD candidates. To the authors of such submissions, the system appears, at best, indifferent to them and, at worst, outright exploitative. Here, we present three such examples – all of whose writers, tellingly, feel the need to remain anonymous, given the power dynamics involved.

Perhaps such tales are inevitable. Perhaps, even with the best will in the world, there will always be supervisor-supervisee relationships that just don’t function; expectations that, however heartfelt, just aren’t realistic; supervisors who just can’t find the time to give the kind of detailed supervision that they would like to give, and that students feel they need.

But perhaps there is still more that could be done to ensure that this most intense and crucial of academic relationships doesn’t end up on the rocks. In that spirit, two academics with strong views on the matter – one from science and one from the humanities – set out how they think the supervisory task should best be approached. Their guidance may not amount to a stake through the heart of the PhD horror franchise: as B-movie history amply demonstrates, good advice is not always heeded. But the exposure of the problems to further sunlight may at least slow the drip-drip of blood on to the doctoral carpet.

I had never felt so helpless in my life. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up

When I was offered a fully funded doctorate in a UK environmental science laboratory, I was delighted and accepted instantly. I assumed that the experience of working in an international environment and the many transferable skills that I would learn would be a stepping stone to an exciting career beyond the academy. Little did I know that what I had signed up for would destroy not only my career plans but also my passion for the subject, my ambition and my self-confidence.

My supervisors turned out to have limited knowledge of the topic that they had so glamorously advertised, and the university lacked the facilities and machinery that I needed. Left with precious little guidance, I was obliged to work with methods that would do very little to enhance my career. An obvious solution was to set up an external collaboration, but my supervisors were reluctant to sanction it. They didn’t seem to want to share the glory with anyone else, but the environment that they created meant that there was never likely to be much glory to share anyway.

It didn’t help, either, that I am female. My male supervisors, in a male-dominated field, constantly made belittling remarks that they would never have made to a male student, remarks that led me to doubt my own capabilities. My doctorate became a living nightmare, and, after a year of ineffectively trying to solve the issues directly with my supervisors, I decided to take things further.

Because the head of my department had just resigned, I sought help from the university’s students’ union. But joint meetings with a union representative and my supervisors seemed to go nowhere, culminating in accusations that I was “making up” the issues. The union subsequently managed to arrange a meeting with the head of the graduate school, but, nearly six weeks after our meeting, he deemed my case too complex and I was ultimately told to solve my issues with my supervisors directly!

I had never felt so helpless in my life, and I was amazed at how unconcerned the university apparently was about student well-being. After months of more meetings with my supervisors and the union, I was contacted by the departmental postgraduate tutor, who expressed “concern” about my progress. This offered me a ray of hope. However, as usual, things got worse rather than better. The university wholly and blindly supported my supervisors, ignored my concerns and suggested, again, that I was making things up. I was offered an additional female supervisor, but, while welcome, that would have done little to solve the other issues.

I was given an ultimatum. I had two weeks to decide if I wanted to continue with my PhD and “accept” things as they were. The alternative was to leave – without any form of diploma or certificate for my two years of work (which included the publication of a first-author paper).

My last throw of the dice was to contact my funding body. However, my entire funding had already been transferred to my university, so there was little that it could do to help me. Thus I had no other choice but to quit and to watch as the university swept my case under the carpet, documenting my withdrawal as the result of “personal and health issues”.

Although the experience has cost me a lot, it also taught me a considerable amount. I learned to be wary of offers that seem too good to be true. I learned not to take my rights for granted. I learned the value of having expectations, commitments and offers put down in writing. I learned to trust no one.

I also learned a lot about how higher education institutions function. I discovered that they will do whatever it takes to cover up their own mishaps to save their reputation, even if it comes at the cost of destroying a young person’s career.

Anecdotally, cases similar to mine are becoming increasingly common. In recent months, there have been multiple ongoing cases at my former university, including more withdrawals. However, the university just recruits more students to make up for the losses.

It is well known that PhD students are widely seen by academics as a cheap workforce. But to be treated with such little respect by the people who are supposed to foster your career and help you to succeed is just not right in any workplace.

The author prefers to remain anonymous.

If you want to supervise and mentor with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department

The power that you as a supervisor have over a student or postdoc is immense. Your actions, whether they are kindnesses, temper tantrums or intimacies, have the potential to shake up trainees to a much greater degree than their actions can affect you. And, most of the time, trainees have no way to solve conflicts with you if you won’t negotiate. Hence, it is your responsibility not to abuse your power.

But it takes integrity and clarity not to do so. Doctoral supervision is challenging. Your first difficulty is in acknowledging and getting beyond unrealistic expectations of your students that you might not even know you have. In science, new supervisors often imagine a lab filled with idealised workers: miniature versions of themselves, who churn out data and submit manuscripts. So when their charges don’t do exactly what they expect, they feel frustrated.

You might also observe that other supervisors allow their people to flounder, or even to fail. And even though you don’t want that, you have never had the lessons in personnel management that might ensure it doesn’t happen. Academic departments and institutions may or may not provide support to guide supervisors and students in building effective relationships.

If you want to supervise and mentor students with integrity and thoughtfulness, it is ultimately up to you to decide to do so, and to make the rules. You cannot assume good ethics on the part of your department. Nor can you assume, as a scientist, that your research group will passively absorb your good intentions. You must consider what you haven’t been trained in graduate school to consider: your own ethics, morals and sense of justice. Accept what institutional help exists, but if the policies at your institution render trainees expendable, you must develop the courage to stand up to power.

And then you build a framework for your students in which your ethics, rules and expectations are clear. For example, if you want your people to know that you are concerned with their professional futures, don’t let them drift without guidance. Evaluate each person regularly, and give feedback and compassionate criticism – not just on results but also on communication skills, presentation skills, time management and other characteristics of a successful professional. Keep notes on your meetings and follow up on what you and the trainee have discussed. Check in frequently and provide multiple opportunities for discussion and interaction. Be present.

Authorship and project choice are other vital areas where your policies can reflect your intentions to have a collaborative rather than a competitive climate. How are projects chosen? Do you actively foster collaboration, putting new people to work with more established lab members in a way that both parties benefit from, and will you continue to guide and monitor those collaborations? Do you intend to compete with your own trainees when they leave, or will you allow them to take their projects with them? Who writes the papers? How is authorship decided? Will you protect your people in authorship disputes with collaborating groups, or will you sacrifice a trainee to keep last authorship for yourself?

Create a group manual, with protocols, policy and helpful information, being specific about whatever you consider to be important for students to know. Include information about where trainees can find help if they have a personal or project issue – including problems with you.

You also need to be prepared to deal with the inevitable conflicts between lab members. Learn not to fear it, as that fear can mould you into a little dictator and keep you from understanding what people need. Have a process to work through conflicts (look up “interest-based conflict resolution”), as fair process often carries more weight with people even than achieving the outcome they wanted. Explain that process to your students, too: conflict resolution is one of the most valuable skills you can pass on. Don’t run from emotions – research is an emotional business – but learn to control your own emotional responses so that they don’t interfere with your communications.

Talk about ethical behaviour, and model that behaviour. If you expect your people to meet deadlines, you should be on time for meetings and return manuscripts and phone calls predictably. If you hear someone making a racist or sexist remark, correct the person: doing nothing will send the message that such behaviour is OK by you.

It is also important not to let yourself, or anyone else, become isolated. Make a point of introducing your students to your former students and postdocs – as well as to experts in their fields – when they visit or when you encounter them at meetings. Model the value of mentors by having mentors yourself, for personal and professional advice. Have the confidence to encourage trainees to have other role models and mentors, especially if they move into a project area in which you aren’t expert: having mentors is the start of building a web of relationships that will support trainees all through their lives.

But students must also be activists. Some supervisors eat their young, and some institutions allow it. As a student, you have the greatest level of control before you accept a position, so look for a place where you are respected and can do the work that you believe in. Ask other students questions about the scholarship and mentorship of particular supervisors before you make the decision to sign on. Once there, find role models, and get to know your community. The more you are integrated with others, the more people there are to help should your relationship with your supervisor or your project go badly.

It is unfortunate and unfair that students are not always protected, and that leaving might be the only solution to a toxic situation, but that is the harsh reality. So, as a student, doing all that you can to ensure that you will be appreciated and fulfilled in the position you accept is worth the effort.

Kathleen Barker is clinical assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health. She is the author of At the Helm: Leading Your Laboratory (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press).

PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported

Tom sent his supervisor a chapter of his PhD thesis to read six weeks ago. He can’t start on the next chapter until he receives feedback on what he has already done. But he has had no response despite chasing up his supervisor – with whom he gets on well personally – several times. Indeed, he has not even received an acknowledgement of his email. And he knows that when he does finally receive a reply, there will be no mention of the delay, let alone an apology. He knows that because this has all happened before.

But this time the situation plays out even more egregiously. After Tom has waited for two more weeks, he finally hears back – a full two months after his initial email. But his supervisor has checked only the first two pages and the last page of his chapter, ignoring everything between.

Tom is frustrated, but he thanks his supervisor for the feedback and does not challenge her over the delay. How can he when he is entirely dependent on her to get him through the PhD submission process and to supply a good reference for subsequent job applications? Besides, sustaining a complaint would come down to his word against hers – and she is senior and well respected in the department and the university. No one would believe him. And even if they did, would it really be worth the hassle of getting another supervisor allocated to him in his final year – and, in the process, acquiring a bad reputation in the department for being the one who “made a fuss”?

So Tom soldiers on. Eventually, after much delay, he finishes his thesis. But is it ready for submission? He points out to his supervisor that he does not believe that the thesis has been checked properly, but she tells him to stop worrying, to take responsibility for his work and to be confident in its quality and in his ability to defend it. So he takes the plunge and submits. But he spends the next two months worrying that he might fail, rendering the past four years of hard work a complete waste of time.

This is a true story. And it takes only a few cursory searches of online PhD forums to see how common such scenarios are. PhD students are often made to feel like they are a huge burden on their supervisors, and they are frequently ignored and unsupported. Hence, even the most toxic student-supervisor relationships often persist long beyond the point of dysfunctionality, sometimes leaving the student with mental health problems.

I believe that this happens primarily because supervisors’ responsibilities are rarely clearly defined and because supervisors are not accountable to anyone for carrying them out. So I make the following recommendations:

• Training for supervisors must be compulsory
• Supervisors must be held accountable to someone senior in the department, and PhD students should be made aware of who that is
• Supervisors must be required to respond to their PhD students’ emails within three days, barring any type of leave
• Supervisors’ responsibilities need to be outlined clearly in a handbook that is available to both supervisors and students. It should also be made clear to students how much of their supervisors’ time each week or month is allocated to giving them feedback so that they are not made to feel like a burden
• Students must be assigned a mentor who is not close to their supervisor or in the same research team – ideally in another department altogether. This person can help to alleviate concerns and act as an intermediary when necessary
• There should be an anonymous procedure within each department that PhD students can use to complain or give feedback about their supervisor
• Supervisors should be formally encouraged to ask their students annually how they could better support them. This should be part of supervisors’ yearly appraisals.

In the absence of such steps, such stories as the one above will continue to write themselves over and over again.

If a relationship works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. Supervising PhDs, I have been directed along paths that I would not have discovered otherwise

There is no doubt in my mind that the best part of being an academic over the years has been supervising PhD students. I cannot remember how many I have supervised, but the number runs to well over 80, and I have examined even more than that.

I am still in touch with many former students and examinees, and have been delighted to follow their careers wherever they are in the world. If a relationship between supervisor and postgraduate works well, it can be life-changing for the student and deeply rewarding for the supervisor. I have learned so much from supervising PhDs, and have been directed along new paths that I would not have discovered otherwise. There have been occasions when a student would arrive in my office with a bag full of books that he or she felt I should read: a living demonstration of the fact that it is not always the supervisor who provides all the bibliographical information.

I always start by telling students three things: that I will read every word they write in draft and then in final copy; that if they can get me to approve the thesis, given how tough I am going to be with them, then they have a very good chance of getting it past the examiners; and that they should not be discouraged if they find that their work is shifting direction after a few months. Writing a humanities PhD is an organic process, and if ideas have not started to develop by the end of the first year, then something is going wrong. Supervisors are particularly important at this stage, to provide reassurance and to help the student move forward.

Supervising PhDs is rewarding because you can see the process of intellectual development unfolding before your eyes. But it is also an intensely time-consuming task. All the various calculations of hourly allocation for supervision are absurd: if you are going to supervise properly, then you have to be prepared to spend hours reading drafts and then talking to the student.

There are some supervisors who do not write anything on drafts, preferring to correct only a final version. I find this ridiculously unhelpful. The whole point of reading drafts is to give proper feedback, and in the case of international students this kind of detailed reading is essential. Academic writing courses help, but careful editing by a supervisor is vital.

Nor should a supervisor’s detailed corrections focus on content alone. They also need to address spelling, punctuation, style and structure. Sometimes I have proposed radical structural changes, such as moving material from a conclusion into the introduction and vice versa. Such suggestions can be responsibly made only after you do a final read-through of the whole thesis – and that final reading is essential because although you may have read individual chapters or sections over several years, only the student will have a clear idea of how they want it to fit together.

It is also important to provide a written summary of general points after reading each draft. I learned early on that trying to do this verbally does not work because a student is often anxious and so does not take everything in. An email with bullet points works best. It is also important to balance criticism with praise, so the summary should start out with something positive before moving on to the “however” part. But all criticism, however negative, should be presented in such a way as to offer solutions and to help the student with the next stage in writing.

One of the problems facing supervisors in the UK is that the hours they put in are never adequately acknowledged by university management. This is because the UK has had to try to catch up with the kind of structure for doctorates that operates in US universities, and often PhD students have been tagged on as extras to someone’s academic workload. In the humanities, there have also been (and remain) some curious ideas about the need for a supervisor to be a “specialist” in exactly the same area as the student. Not only can this impose undue pressures on specialists in popular fields, it is also conceptually misconceived. Supervision should take both student and supervisor down relatively unexplored paths.

When it comes to choosing an examiner, practices vary widely. I have heard colleagues state firmly that the student should have no input, but I consult with mine because it is important to find out whether they have been in contact with any potential examiners. Also, despite clear guidelines, some universities still do not appoint anyone to chair the viva, which means that if a student feels hard done by, there is no independent witness. That only makes the choice of examiner even more important.

I don’t understand why supervising PhDs should be seen as a chore, rather than as a unique opportunity to engage with the brightest minds of younger generations. My research would be so much poorer without the help that I have received, directly and indirectly, from my doctoral students.

Susan Bassnett is professor of comparative literature at the universities of Warwick and Glasgow.

The degree was not awarded. Yet years later I discovered evidence that the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

Some students cheat. That’s clear from numerous articles in the press. But is this a one-sided view? How often is the examiner’s performance questioned or subjected to independent scrutiny? For postgraduates in particular, this is no trivial matter: any bias or lack of honesty in an examiner can waste years of the candidate’s life and can degrade trust in the system.

My experience may not be typical, but it’s certainly an eye-opener for any postgraduate who assumes that the viva examination will be automatically fair and above board.

After an MSc, I completed four years of doctoral research at a major UK university. The results were formally approved by the relevant research council and were published as a series of seven papers in major, peer-reviewed journals.

Before the viva, I’d queried the choice of examiners, owing to perceived bias, but was overruled.

The degree was not awarded: the examiners claimed that none of my seven papers had deserved publication – even though they had satisfied a total of 14 independent referees. The examiners had decided all 14 were wrong.

So what did I do? I got on with my life. Years later, though, I discovered that my papers are cited in the examiners’ own publications: that is, the examiners had used them as valid references to support their own work. Incredibly, some of these papers had been referenced before my viva. Clearly, this was perverse, dishonest and highly unprofessional conduct: the viva had been deliberately biased. It’s a serious matter – so how would the university respond?

I sent it five of the examiners’ publications that cite my papers, together with a copy of the examiners’ signed report. I asked for acknowledgement that the viva had been biased. But the university declined to comment; it said the complaint was “out of time”.

Where there is evidence of malpractice, it should not matter when the viva was held: bias was deliberate and obvious, and the university could have followed up. Hiding behind process is a deeply inadequate response to such a blatant and egregious case. Nowadays, so-called historic cases of injustice and abuse, some from many decades ago, are being recognised and investigated. So why is corruption in education treated differently?

Examinations might be more equitable if, before the viva, candidates were officially entitled to raise concerns about their examiners – any concerns being addressed independently of the college or university. Such adjudication might seldom be needed, but it should still be in place. Examiners, after all, are people. And people – from students to presidents – do not always possess the levels of integrity and honesty that we naively expect of them.

Candidates should not be expected to accept a particular examiner if they can offer valid reasons for not doing so. And any university that seeks to impose a disputed examiner should be asked to reconsider its definition of fair play. 

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

PhDs: ‘toxic’ supervisors and ‘students from hell’

How should universities handle breakdowns in PhD student-supervisor relationships?

Reader's comments (11)

You might also like.

Sexual harassment of PhDs linked to academia’s ‘leaky pipeline’

Women who complete their PhDs in workplaces with high harassment rates less likely to remain in research, Danish study finds

Renaming postdocs and PhD students would boost respect, pay, progression

What other industry would deem those with so much prior training to still be mere trainees? Let’s call them what they are – researchers, says Michele Nardin

Academic careers recommended by just one in six postdocs: survey

Teachers fret about workloads and researchers about job security in ‘rare sport’ of academia

Featured jobs

Before you go, check this out!

We have lots more on the site to show you. You've only seen one page. Check out this post which is one of the most popular of all time.

How to Deal with Bad Experiences as a PhD Student

Pursuing a PhD is one of the most challenging things anyone can do in life. It takes a lot of fortitude, time, and there can be a lot of challenges along the way. Some of these challenges, or even “bad” experiences, if we want to call them that, that can happen along the way include having trouble learning from a particular professor, being placed in a teaching assistant or research assistant position where you are not challenged, feeling isolated, having problems with your dissertation committee, or not getting the salary or job opportunities you expected after graduation.

Dave says most of us have a few bad experiences during our PhD program so you should know you are not alone in experiencing some challenges.  Dave describes some other bad experiences that can occur in a PhD program in his vlog (see below) including mental health challenges, challenges with conducting research, or suddenly feeling like you are not at the top of your class. This post will review some of these potential PhD program pitfalls and recommend strategies for coping with different challenges that may come your way.  

This post was written by Stephanie A. Bosco-Ruggiero (PhD candidate in Social Work at Fordham University Graduate School of Social Service) on behalf of Dave Maslach. This is part of the R3ciprocity project (Check out the YouTube Channel or the writing feedback software ). R3ciprocity helps students, faculty, and research folk by providing a real and authentic look into doing research. It provides solutions and hope to researchers around the world.

What bad experiences might I have with professors?

You may have the bad experience of clashing with a professor who is your advisor, supervisor, or dissertation committee chair. You interact more closely with professors during a PhD program compared to when you were in undergrad or graduate school. You may be in a PhD program with a very small cohort so the professors you have for class may also be your advisors or supervisors in the sense that you are either their teaching assistant, research assistant, or a paid staff person on their grant. If you have a bad relationship with a professor, it can be particularly difficult because you are potentially interacting with them in several different capacities. (You might want to read this post about making the most of your PhD experience.)

An advisor may not put the time and effort into mentoring or advising you, or in the way that you think they should. It may not be a good match, but that is OK because most programs will let you choose your own advisor or switch advisors. You certainly should feel comfortable with an advisor who is there to help you decide which courses to take, how to approach the dissertation process, and give you advice about your career.

You may run into bad experiences with professors on your dissertation committee as well. Your chair may be making critiques or suggestions that you do not agree with. You may be on your eighth draft and the chair or committee members are telling you that you are still not ready. Or your committee chair may actually be largely unavailable, dragging out the time it takes to complete your dissertation.  

When it comes to dealing with professors, as a PhD student you might also run into challenges with their teaching style. You may have a professor or two who are just not good teachers. This can happen at any level of academia, but in a PhD program it is especially difficult because you cannot easily drop the class. You will eventually have to take that class and the same professor may be teaching it the next time around. In this situation stick with the class, talk to the professor about anything you do not understand, and if that is not helpful get a tutor. There are many great tutors online that can help you through that one class that is posing a challenge for you.

The worse experience you could have with a professor is that they are harassing or intimidating you. Trust your gut when you feel highly uncomfortable or scared of someone. It is probably a red flag if your feelings about someone are that strong. If you are being harassed report it immediately to the office at your university that takes those kinds of complaints. If a professor is intimidating you, for example threatening to give you a bad grade if you do not finish their manuscript, do the same. You might also want to warn other students to be wary of working with this professor.

What negative experiences might I have with teaching?

You might also clash with a professor you work with as a TA. You may have less choice about which professors you work with as a TA or RA. I have heard stories about students being placed with professors who either make them teach all of their classes or only have them grade papers. Furthermore, as a TA or adjunct you might receive very negative and unhelpful feedback from a professor. Do your best to not TA for that professor if the relationships is just not productive.

Furthermore, as an instructor you may have very difficult experiences with particular students. If this happens, talk to the professor or teaching supervisors about what is going on with this student. It may turn out that multiple instructors and professors are having the same issues with these students and there are personal reasons why they are struggling or blaming you for their failures.

You may also receive negative feedback from a professor or students about your teaching. If it is your first-time teaching or your first time teaching a course, put the experience into perspective. Cut yourself some slack. It is not easy doing anything the first time around. Gather constructive criticism and set out to improve those areas of your teaching that can be improved. Watch this video about listening to negative feedback about your teaching evaluations:

If students are particularly nasty in their evaluation comments, talk to your teaching supervisor (whether it is a department chair or dean) and find out if a seasoned professor can observe your teaching the next time around. Ask questions about what might be challenging the students other than your teaching, such as new course requirements or other stressors. Try to understand if their criticisms are focused more on the curriculum or your teaching style.

Parse out all criticism and figure out what you have control over and what you do not. Make a list of teaching skills that you want to improve and work on for yourself, and how to better deal with criticism if you did not do so the first time around.  

Watch this vlog from Dave about overcoming common challenges encountered during a PhD program:  

Negative experiences related to research

You may find it difficult to openly discuss the research you are doing, or you may feel alone in your endeavors. With a research assistantship you may find the professor does not trust you to do challenging work. He or she may give you work that is not helping you build your skills. For example, I have heard of professors giving students administrative work or only has them doing literature reviews.

There really should be a balance in your TA and RA responsibilities and you should feel challenged, because after all you are a PhD student (read this blog post about the responsibilities of RAs). Do your best to get through these dull or challenging assignments and speak to the PhD program director if you think you were given work out of the scope of what you should be doing or that was not sufficiently challenging.

 It should be up to you whether or not you work as a paid staff member at an institute or on a professor’s funded project, but even this type of position can present challenges as well. You may think you will be doing one thing only to realize you are not doing what you signed up for. You may find it is difficult to work with the professor or that they are treating you like an RA. Furthermore, you may be overworked or underpaid.

The good news about paid staff positions is you can quit them at any time. This may not come without repercussions though, so quit in a tactful way. Say that it just was not a good match or that your other responsibilities as a student took up too much of your time. Do not get into a personal argument with the professor — it is just not worth it.

You may also face some challenges in completing and sharing your research. You may feel isolated because there is no one else doing this kind of work who you can reach out to for feedback and collaboration. This is good and bad. It is good because you have found a research topic that no one else has really tapped into, but then it’s bad because there is little opportunity for collaboration at this time. In this situation, keep going and ask for feedback from academics in related fields and ask your classmates for feedback as well. You will love this blog post on dealing with negative feedback – which we get lots of in academia.

What kinds of problems might I have with plagiarism?

One of the worst experiences you could have in academia is having your ideas stolen. Unfortunately, this has happened to PhD students. It might be that another student or even a professor has stolen your ideas and presented them as their own, or a professor has plagiarized from a paper you submitted for a course. Once your ideas are on paper, modern copyright law says that you own that idea. Bring your concerns and your evidence to the Dean or file a formal complaint if there is a mechanism to do so at your university. Most large universities really look out for you as the researcher, especially as a graduate student. If you do not receive a satisfactory response to your complaint, bring the theft to the attention to a lawyer / attorney for help. Check out this video on idea theft:

What if I don’t stand out and get the job offers I want?

Many PhD students are dissatisfied with the lack of academic job offers they receive after earning their diploma. They may think they deserve greater recognition for their work. They may realize that while they stood out in their graduate program and after they earned a graduate degree, they now do not stand out as much as a PhD graduate. It is true that academic jobs are hard to come by and extremely competitive, especially in certain fields. You should be prepared for some level of disappointment by having a backup plan for what you will do with your degree if you do not get an academic job.

You have worked hard though, and you do have a degree that few others have so you deserve the best opportunities. If the opportunity you want does not come along immediately, be patient and keep looking and applying. Network and ask your contacts if they know of any available positions in your field in academia.

Remember, that you must be prepared as well to be competitive in the job market. In my field, you should have three to five (depending on the fields) peer reviewed publications, some research project experience, and definitely some teaching experience. Keep in mind that the number and quality of peer reviewed publications varies a lot between research fields. It is up to you as well to know how to draw more attention to your CV. Just having a PhD does not mean automatic fame or wealth. Just like any other degree or field, you are competing with others who stand out just as much as you.

Be flexible and realistic about your post-doctoral plans and do what feels best for you. It might be that ultimately you will be happier with a job outside academia. Keep your mind open, do what you do best, and you will land doing something very rewarding in the end (or start your own business!). Read this blog post about alternative to careers in academia.

What if I feel depressed and want to quit?

Mental health challenges are very common among students at any academic level. Studying can be an isolating experience because you do not have as much time for leisure and friends. Learning new concepts and new things about the world can also be life changing. You may now feel that you have a different worldview than your friends or family. You may want to go into a particular direction that people in your life do not support. In this case, reach out to people who are passionate about the same things and soak up their positive enthusiasm, encouragement, ideas, and feedback. Find a community of likeminded people who care about the same things as you. This R3ciprocity blog post about thesis depression might be helpful for you (Remember – you are normal to feel down about your work from time to time).

 Of course if you feel overwhelming doubt, depression, anxiety, or suffer from severe impostor syndrome where you feel you are somehow “faking” your way through the program or are not as smart as others in your field, seek professional help. If you are in the midst of a mental health crisis do not quit your program. It is not the time to make such a life altering decision. Get help first, and when you feel better, then you can decide if quitting the program is the best plan.

 Dave advises people to pay attention to their emotions and not push them aside, because they could be telling you something. Use your emotions in how you deal with challenges in your life. If negative feelings are constant you may need to make a change. If you are stuck in your emotions reach out to people you trust to help you become unstuck.

If you are confused or anxious about your work lean on your PhD student colleagues. Many fields are not hyper competitive and other students will be a surprisingly constant and helpful sounding board and sources of advice and comfort. If you are in a field that is highly competitive and other students are not that supportive, perhaps hire a professional coach or tutor to help you out.

Dave suggests you keep track of your negative experiences to help you put them into perspective and see if there are real patterns. Sometimes a bad experience is just about a person having a bad day. If bad experiences persist, talk to someone. For example, if a student is giving you a problem go to a Dean about what is going on. If the academic chain of command is not being responsive to a problem, try to speak to someone in a mediating role. If there are multiple negative experiences that repeatedly go unaddressed it may be time to transfer to a new PhD program.

Visit the R3ciprocity channel on YouTube at  R3ciprocity.com . Also, read these blog posts for more information about how to deal with the most challenging situations you can face as a PhD student:

Tips For Meeting With A PhD Advisor / Graduate Supervisor That Actually Work

How Are PhD Students Evaluated? (A Guide On Assessing The Performance Of Grad Students)

R3ciprocity_Team

Recent Posts

Navigating Academia As A Parent Or Caregiver: The Dual Challenge of PhDs and Parenthood

PhD students and highly-educated individuals face a unique set of challenges. Among these, balancing the rigorous demands of academic life with personal responsibilities, such as single parenthood or...

Navigating Academic Rejection

In academia, rejection is the game. The top journals reject 95% of submissions. This staggering figure paints a picture of an environment where rejection is not the exception, but the rule. When...

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 13 November 2019

PhDs: the tortuous truth

• Chris Woolston 0

Chris Woolston is a freelance writer in Billings, Montana.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Getting a PhD is never easy, but it’s fair to say that Marina Kovačević had it especially hard. A third-year chemistry student at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia, she started her PhD programme with no funding, which forced her to get side jobs bartending and waitressing. When a funded position came up in another laboratory two years later, she made an abrupt switch from medicinal chemistry to computational chemistry. With the additional side jobs, long hours in the lab, and the total overhaul of her research and area of focus, Kovačević epitomizes the overworked, overextended PhD student with an uncertain future.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 575 , 403-406 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03459-7

Woolston, C. Nature 550 , 549–552 (2017).

Article   Google Scholar  

Auerbach, R. P. et al. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 127 , 623–638 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Oswalt, S. B. et al. J. Am. Coll. Health https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1515748 (2018).

Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L. & Hubbard, K. Int. J. Dr Stud. 13 , 361–388 (2018).

Download references

Related Articles

• Institutions

Africa’s postdoc workforce is on the rise — but at what cost?

Career Feature 02 APR 24

Impact factors are outdated, but new research assessments still fail scientists

World View 02 APR 24

How scientists are making the most of Reddit

Career Feature 01 APR 24

Larger or longer grants unlikely to push senior scientists towards high-risk, high-reward work

Nature Index 25 MAR 24

A fresh start for the African Academy of Sciences

Editorial 19 MAR 24

Numbers highlight US dominance in clinical research

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

How can we make PhD training fit for the modern world? Broaden its philosophical foundations

Correspondence 02 APR 24

The neuroscientist formerly known as Prince’s audio engineer

Career Feature 14 MAR 24

This geologist communicates science from the ski slopes

Career Q&A 11 MAR 24

Seeking Global Talents, the International School of Medicine, Zhejiang University

Welcome to apply for all levels of professors based at the International School of Medicine, Zhejiang University.

Yiwu, Zhejiang, China

International School of Medicine, Zhejiang University

Nanjing Forestry University is globally seeking Metasequoia Scholars and Metasequoia Talents

Located next to Purple Mountain and Xuanwu Lake, Nanjing Forestry University (NJFU) is a key provincial university jointly built by Jiangsu Province

Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Nanjing Forestry University (NFU)

Career Opportunities at the Yazhouwan National Laboratory, Hainan, China

YNL recruits leading scientists in agriculture: crop/animal genetics, biotech, photosynthesis, disease resistance, data analysis, and more.

Sanya, Hainan, China

Yazhouwan National Laboratory

Postdoctoral Associate- Cell Biology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Head of ClinicalTrials.gov

National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Information Engineering...

Washington D.C. (US)

National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Search News and Events
• News overview
• Media relations

Why some PhD students may decide to leave academia

TU/e researcher Andrea Kis discusses her research into the correlation between bad workplace experiences and the decisions PhD researchers make to abandon their PhD research.

The number of young, talented doctoral candidates who decide to leave academia , often before graduating as a PhD, is worrying. The fact that approximately 60 percent of PhD’s worldwide consider quitting their research, or at least do not graduate within 6 years of study, is a risk for the future of knowledge and research institutions such as universities. In her thesis, psychologist Andrea Kis is researching what factors significantly influence these career decisions in order to better understand why some young researchers leave or stay.

In her research, Kis found a correlation between experiencing problems in supervision or other socially unsafe situations as a PhD, and the decision to leave academia. Her recommendations of improving supervisor training and skills are very practical. However, the stress stemming from the current pervasive publish-or-perish culture, in all levels of academia, may not be something that any one institution is able change on its own. She published the first part of her research recently in PLOS ONE.

Safe working environment

There is a lot of focus on social safety in academia these days, and universities are slowly coming to realize that the current working climate in academia is perhaps not as perfect as everyone wanted to believe for a long time. “Working in a (socially) unsafe working environment is very impactful, in many ways. For this part of my research, I wanted to know if the safety of your working environment was a deciding, significant factor in the decision of PhD students to leave academia,” says Andrea Kis , psychologist and part of the Technology, Innovation & Society group at the department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences.

“We had around 1600 PhD students at TU/e according to the website in 2020. Almost 400 of them sent back valid survey results. That is an enormous commitment regarding the subject at hand and makes for a good, and higher than typical, response rate.

“When processing the results we had to account for the fact that we are a Dutch STEM university. STEM researchers constitute an understudied population that might differ substantially from non-STEM populations, as natural and laboratory sciences appear to have (much) lower attrition rates than, for example, the social sciences and humanities.

Commitment and response

“PhD candidates in the Netherlands are generally employees and earn a salary, which means that ‘funding’ is much less of a concern for them. Studies show that PhD candidates who have more stable financial resources are more likely to complete their education. We found that most, around 90 percent, of our respondents were very happy in their work, and about their supervision.

“We found that only 21 percent of our respondents considered leaving academia, which is significantly less than the worldwide number of 60 percent or the 34 percent attrition rates in the literature. However, the group that did report irregularities, ranging from bad or absent supervision and a high workload to unethical research practices, also turned out to have an above-average chance of leaving academia.”

The correlation between bad experiences at work and the decision to leave may not come across as very surprising, it is however extra poignant when realizing that this group not only ‘changes jobs’, but leaves their scientific career behind to go do something else entirely. “Students who decide to do a PhD are people who dream about becoming a scientist, or at least enjoy doing research for a living. That is their ambition, although they do not necessarily want to stay on in academia after graduation. It is crushing to see these driven, talented people leave behind the PhD research they set out to do, because of bad workplace experiences,” adds Kis.

“Being a PhD can be a lonely existence, especially when you leave your family and friends behind and move to a different city or country to follow your dream. When you feel completely on your own, it can be much harder to deal with a bad vibe in the team, a workplace incident, or a supervisor with little time for you.”

Working to create a socialy safe environment

Even though the percentage of PhD candidates considering leaving academia at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) is well below average (21 percent at TU/e vs. a reported average of 34 percent in Europe and 60 percent worldwide), there is still a drive to understand and prevent the reasons why young and talented researchers leave their chosen career path behind.

"TU/e’s HR department and the Graduate School are jointly responsible for the education and working environments of the PhD’s. They value the insights and recommendations offered by Andrea Kis," explains Ineke van der Vegt, TU/e HR policy advisor. "Her policy related reflections have been carefully considered by a committee and have influenced the position paper that is being written, as we speak, for Paul Koenraad’s second term as dean for the Graduate School. Although the contents are not final yet, it is safe to assume that there will be a lot of focus on social safety."

"But, also in the present day, there are a lot of measures in place to ensure that PhD students can thrive during their research. The PhD supervisor training course has been around for years and has been recently updated; it is freely available for every new supervisor. There is also focus on developing healthy leadership skills for all researchers at assistant professor level and beyond," says van der Vegt. "Additionally, every PhD is required to have a second supervisor (co-promotor), to limit how much any PhD student is dependent on just the first supervisor. And, last but certainly not least, there is the PhD counselor, who is there for every PhD researcher who wants to discuss their situation in a confidential setting with someone who can help and offer advice."

Researching your own

“It is very interesting to be a psychologist at a STEM university,” Kis adds enthusiastically. “For me, in my experience in social sciences and humanities studies, it is very commonplace to research your own environment and population. Every psychology department anywhere will research the students of its own institution, the employees, etcetera. I found that researching our own students and employees like we did is in many ways a first for TU/e. Nevertheless, the results have been welcomed to help improve our institution.

“And to that end I’d love to see more psychologists join me in researching our TU/e community. It will help to normalize this type of research at our university too. And the results can only help policymakers to understand their own institution better and help them to make the right decisions. It also explains why I have four different supervisors, because there is no single professor who covers the same domain that I’m studying.”

Using the results for the better

Nevertheless, TU/e is not alone in having to address the situation. When asked about the root causes, Kis clarifies: “It is my belief that the publish-or-perish culture in science is at the root of many of the workplace issues we see in academia today, such as normalizing overtime work. It pushes people to unconsciously have unhealthy work-life balances, to favor PhD students who publish more, to take on more work and more students, and to put your name on as many papers as you can. This can result in workplace environments no one wants.”

“Added to that, we do not yet have a mandatory training or course in place to train PhD supervisors in their new role. They may be the best researchers in their particular field, but effectively being the manager of a team of brand new scientists and coaching them requires a different set of skills. We should allow people to acquire those too, before we give them PhD students to supervise.”

“What my research can do is to grow awareness of the root causes and the effects. That way we can help people become better in their role as a supervisor, instead of blaming them for things that go wrong and leaving them to sort it out themselves. It is very, very rare that people create a bad working environment on purpose. Educating and supporting supervisors is a far more constructive way forward, according to all literature I found on the subject,” adds Kis.

“I really am an optimistic person and I believe we can help to change academia become a better place to work in. Better for excellent science, and kinder to the people who work there. I hope my research helps to bring that about,” concludes Kis.

More information

The article ‘ Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments’ was published in PLOS ONE on October 5, 2022. Andrea Kis is continuing her PhD research under supervision of Elena M. Tur, Daniël Lakens, Krist Vaesen and Wybo Houkes.

HR and the Graduate School are gathering everything a PhD may need in one place, a portal. This is a work-in-progress, but already offers a shortcut to help, or someone to talk to. More info:

PhD Programs (tue.nl) – Graduate School - PhDs PROOF Training Program (tue.nl) – courses for PhD’s Scientific Staff Management Training Program (tue.nl) – o.a. academic leadership courses and the recently updated Supervising PhD’s course. PhD-EngD Counselor (tue.nl) – link to the PhD-EngD counselor

More on our strategy

Latest news

Keep following us

Newsletter research.

Sign up for our bimonthly newsletter that brings you the latest in groundbreaking research from TU/e.

TU/e podcasts

The Dutch podcast Sound of Science discusses the latest scientific discoveries and the role of technology in society.

Be part of our community and stay up to date on everything that happens at TU/e by following us on LinkedIn.

Be the first to know the latest TU/e news via our Twitter channel.

Instagram - Research

Follow our latest research news via our research channel on Instagram.

On our YouTube channel you find the latest videos and animations about research, education and working at TU/e.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Bad PhD supervisors can ruin research. So why aren't they accountable?

A demoralising and sarcastic professor left me wondering if I should be doing a PhD at all – and I’m not alone

P hD students’ relationships with their supervisors are pivotal; not only in terms of producing a good thesis, but ensuring academic and professional development. But while PhD candidates’ work is regularly checked by supervisors, it is far less common, to have formal checks made on the supervisors, with students assessing their performance.

The imbalance of power in these relationships needs to be acknowledged. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but only if supervisors use their position and privilege to empower students. When they say and do things that impede learning and advancement, it is an abuse of their authority.

One of the main duties of the role, for example, is to provide feedback on a student’s work. In my experience, this can range from general comments to close editing of sentence constructions and grammar. It can take the form of constructive feedback for improvement, or demoralising sarcasm. I have experienced the full range, and it has had a direct impact on my research. The most negatively couched feedback not only hampered my progress, but left me wondering if I should be doing a PhD at all.

Another vital aspect of supervision responsibility is to be, well, responsible. Unanswered emails only increase the anxiety of a student waiting for feedback on a discussion chapter. Unannounced departures for conferences, holidays and research projects are frustrating, particularly when they could have been discussed in advance.

A friend of mine had to deal with the sudden retirement of his supervisor, whose replacement then left after just six months in the role - he now has one who is on research leave with intermittent access to the internet (or is perhaps just intermittent with his responses).

The tensions and discomfort are more keenly felt by students, I suspect. We can’t simply turn away from an errant supervisor and go to another, but we can’t talk freely about how we feel – this is akin to bad-mouthing your boss.

I previously had to psych myself up for supervision meetings; the barrage of criticism I faced often left me feeling stupid. But this kind of thinking trapped me into becoming even more dependent on my supervisor for words of affirmation that came too little and too late. I constantly questioned whether I was good enough. After months of anxiety and stress, and with advice from others who suffered at the hands of the same supervisor, I made a decision to end the relationship.

Luckily I now have new supervisors who behave in more professional and responsible ways. I don’t believe that there is a perfect supervisor, but the ones I have are giving me the support that I need – being responsive, pre-empting future tasks, and most importantly, making me, a novice researcher, feel that I have a valuable contribution to make.

When students have horrible experiences with their supervisors, they tend to share them in private conversations with friends or in social media rants because there is often no formal channel to address them. My university seems shy about putting in place performance measures of PhD supervision, but is proactive about undergraduate students’ evaluations of papers and lecturers. Is there an assumption that PhD students and supervisors are mature enough to work out mutually satisfactory supervision arrangements?

As it stands, students are often left to manage tense relationships, find informal alternatives to make up for bad or non-existent supervision. Unless things become so strained that it is necessary to change supervisors (as it was in my case), students tend to put up with bad behaviour.

Maybe it’s because they think that’s the way a PhD is, or because they can’t see any face-saving way to remedy the situation. But it’s also because supervisors don’t appear to be accountable to anyone. When I have raised this with the academic staff who support doctoral students, I often get an evasive response – “It’s a tricky situation, isn’t it?” – or just an empathetic nod of the head.

There’s huge pressure on universities to produce research in order to prove their worth. If research is so important, then what about making a little more effort to nurture researchers-to-be?

Universities should not only implement performance evaluations of supervisors, but also cultivate safe spaces for doctoral students to share their issues, and have access to support staff who will be able to provide constructive advice and guide them towards workable strategies and solutions.

We need to get rid of the false notion of low-maintenance supervision relationships between consenting adults. These pairings are in fact high maintenance, and fragile. Ignoring the issues will not defuse a bomb that’s waiting to explode – one that could destroy promising careers.

Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered . Email article pitches to us at [email protected]

• Universities
• Academics anonymous
• University management and administration
• Higher education

Most viewed

10 signs of a bad PhD supervisor

A PhD supervisor is arguably the most important person in a PhD student’s journey. Therefore, a good match between PhD supervisor and PhD student is crucial. The following ten signs help prospective PhD students to expose bad PhD supervisors or at least a bad match between the supervisor and themselves.

Why finding a good PhD supervisor is so important

#1 a bad phd supervisor only asks what you have to offer, not the other way around, #2 a bad phd supervisor does not show interest in your personal story and situation, #3 a bad phd supervisor gives you the impression that a phd should be a painful experience, #4 a bad phd supervisor tells you that it is normal to work overtime, #5 a bad phd supervisor is not genuinely excited about your research topic, #6 a bad phd supervisor has a personality that simply does not click with yours, #7 a bad phd supervisor is not active in any academic networks in your field, #8 a bad phd supervisor operates in a tense and competitive environment, #9 a bad phd supervisor makes you singlehandedly responsible for financing your phd, #10 a bad phd supervisor wants you to avoid all types of side projects and activities.

Academic research has repeatedly highlighted the importance of the right PhD supervisor for PhD students. And not only the quantity and quality of supervision matter.

Studies have shown that PhD students fare much better when they get along with their supervisor on a personal and academic level. The latter means that PhD students work on a topic that is closely linked to the supervisor’s research.

If you don’t have a good PhD supervisor, not all is lost. You can still make it, but it is fair to say that your PhD experience will be much less enjoyable.

Having a PhD supervisor who is not only competent in terms of research content but who is also genuinely interested in your well-being and academic success, makes a PhD journey much more enjoyable.

Therefore, it is extremely important to be able to spot a bad PhD supervisor.

The first sign of a bad PhD supervisor can often already be detected during the interview stage of an application: Bad PhD supervisors are only interested to find out what you have to offer to them.

They don’t explain what they, and their department or lab, can offer to you. This attitude is based on arrogance: A bad PhD supervisor believes that only you are under scrutiny, and not the other way around.

Bad PhD supervisors also don’t give you any space to ask questions about the support they would provide to you. Instead, they simply assume that anyone would be happy to work with them, regardless of what they have to offer.

Everyone has a personal story related to his or her research interests. Why are you interested in your research topic? Where does your motivation to do a PhD come from? A bad PhD supervisor does not ask about your motivation.

Additionally, a bad PhD supervisor shows no interest at all in your personal situation. For instance, whether you are an international student. Or whether you have family or care responsibilities.

Bad PhD supervisors are only interested in your academic ability and outputs. They don’t care about you as a person with a life outside of academia.

A bad PhD supervisor talks about a PhD journey as something that is not, and should not, be enjoyable. Instead, struggling emotionally and financially is presented as a normal and accepted part of a PhD process.

A bad PhD supervisor stresses that everyone who does a PhD suffers and that you should expect to suffer too. As if this is part of the deal.

Additionally, a bad PhD supervisor warns you indirectly that complaints about workload etcetera will not be accepted.

A bad PhD supervisor does not emphasise the need for work-life balance. On the contrary, a bad PhD supervisor tells you that you are expected to work during evenings, weekends and holidays.

A bad PhD supervisor gives you the impression that unless you give up everything (your social life, hobbies, sleep and health), you are not fully committed to your PhD. And hence not worthy of receiving a doctorate.

A bad PhD supervisor may be interested in taking you on as a PhD student, but for the wrong reasons. For instance, having PhD students is an important factor for academic promotions.

Bad PhD supervisors want you as a PhD student because it will look good on their CV. However, when they talk about your research, they don’t express any enthusiasm about your topic.

You can spot bad PhD supervisors for your research if you see that their research is not connected to yours. Furthermore, when they talk about your research idea, they seem disinterested and detached, instead of passionate.

Sometimes, a PhD supervisor may seem like a perfect match for you on paper . But when you meet in person, you just have this gut feeling that the two of you don’t click.

When you click with someone, you get along well. You feel comfortable asking questions, and the conversation simply flows.

If you meet a potential supervisor and you constantly feel awkward, you feel like you have to read between the lines, the way they speak stresses you out, and the conversation does not flow, this person is probably a bad fit for you.

Some PhD supervisors have outstanding publication records. And while the academic reputation of a supervisor in terms of publications can be an advantage for you as a PhD student, publications are not everything in academia.

Instead, PhD supervisors play – and should play – an important role in connecting you to others in the field. They should link you to networks and help you to gain access to inner research circles.

However, bad PhD supervisors don’t care about connecting you in the field. They only care about the research right in front of them and don’t care about future opportunities for you.

A bad PhD supervisor creates an atmosphere of competition instead of collaboration. If you have the chance to visit a department or lab in person, you can test whether the atmosphere feels tense and competitive, or convivial.

Do people chat with each other? Are people smiling and looking like they are enjoying their work? Or does everyone seem completely stressed out, and hardly acknowledge you and everyone else around?

If possible, also try to talk to current PhD students and postdocs of a potential supervisor. While being aware that the supervision style may not suit them, but could suit you, negative impressions from several people can indicate the potential PhD supervisor.

A bad PhD supervisor is not interested in how you finance your PhD. Instead, a bad PhD supervisor puts the burden of financing your PhD entirely on your shoulders.

This means that bad PhD supervisors don’t brainstorm with you about financing options. They also don’t share any experiences of securing funding for previous PhD students.

A bad PhD supervisor is also not willing to work on grant proposals with you, to secure future funding for you.

PhD supervisors are certainly right if they don’t want you to lose focus on your PhD. Bad PhD supervisors, however, are negative about any activities that are not 100% related to your PhD from the get-go.

A bad PhD supervisor does not understand the importance of creating an all-around academic profile , for PhD students to be competitive in (academic and non-academic) labour markets after graduation. This includes, for example, teaching experiences, collaborative work, learning to write a grant application, or being active in academic networks.

Bad PhD supervisors view these activities purely as distractions. They don’t understand or don’t care about, the importance of some side-projects and activities which can improve your future (academic) success.

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

How to introduce yourself in a conference presentation (in six simple steps)

Asking for a recommendation letter from a phd supervisor, related articles.

Character traits of ‘bad’ PhD students

All you need to know about career objectives on PhD resumes

Top 30 motivational quotes for graduate students

The best ‘Finally, I am graduated’ quotes (real quotes)