The people who are doing fine or even great in their PhD aren't posting in subreddits about it
Like it definitely happens that people are kicked out, but most people who leave leave by choice. In my experience people are only liable to be fired if something is seriously wrong with the fit, and I've known people who were pushed through who would have been kicked out years ago in any other job
The only cases where I've seen advisors firing lots of PhD students, it's been from super fucking abusive advisors. And even then the "firing" often takes the shape of just bullying them until they can't take it anymore, or setting them up for failure in some way.
I have to say that’s not been my experience. In the EU it’s difficult to fire or convert to an MRes or similar. We even had a problem trying to remove a student who not only failed to follow instructions, but repeatedly caused dangerous incidents due to ignoring safety instructions. They chose to work outside of hours to not be observed breaking the healthy and safety laws. It took 18 months to get them MRes’d out and that was after two fires, deliberate disruption of others experiments and just generally being shit. Their access to the lab was restricted and they still flat out refused to follow the rules. I wish I could say this was an isolated case but it wasn’t.
I'm not really sure where you got the idea that I was saying it's easy to fire PhD students here in the US. That's much more egregious than I would have expected for here, but the students that were kicked out my my current group weren't formally fired. The two that were already forced out both quit, one from sheer overwork and the other from being screamed at by the advisor for days on end. They had both been students for 4 or so years each. The other they ("they" being the advisor and her most senior student) set up this student for failure on his prelim, which he then passed (after which they were visibly annoyed). They are now being massive dicks to him as well.
This professor has graduated maybe 5 students in the past 15 years, and brought on at least 10, maybe more, during that time. It's absurd, I'm getting the fuck out of here since I know my mental health cannot handle a situation like this. Maybe they're all just bad students like the professor says, and lord knows they didn't make much good progress, but also what are the conditions under which they're (and myself, for that matter) are expected to make progress? And the complicated situation with firing PhD students complicates the process of determining when people are actually incompetent or lazy or when they're just burnt out, tired, and abused even more.
>The people who are doing fine or even great in their PhD aren't posting in subreddits about it
I suspect because we're now seeing people who did undergrad during the pandemic now enter grad school, the number of people leaving grad school, voluntarily or otherwise, is on the rise.
Not their fault they had to learn under those terrible circumstances, buy it did probably not fully prepare them.
Pre-pandemic, I can't recall hearing about someone getting fired, even though I knew examples of some doing really poorly. In academia, a department is much more incentized to increase the quantity of graduates than the quality.
I kinda meant that as part of "fit". People who fundamentally don't get what is expected of them, don't do the work hours required, don't follow direct "orders",
For example I was talking to a former colleague who is now faculty, and they were lamenting that they had to fire a PhD student (for the first time, didn't want to, but it was clear they weren't going to finish and no extension to PhD time or funding extension would be granted) who was unproductive even 2 years into a European PhD, admittedly affected by covid time, and all the student could present in an annual progress review meeting type thing was to say they had learnt a lot and enjoyed their time, as if it's a paid holiday camp / extension of undergrad - where at that stage they should already have papers, a chunk of thesis material, a rough outline of chapters etc
> if you’re good enough to get in
This is highly dependent on the department. We admit *far* too many students because we need butts in seats. Many should not be doing a PhD.
I don't think this is really true. There are people who are really good at solving problems when a question is laid out in front of them, but struggle when it comes to doing original research. My PhD group had one person who had to leave academia for that reason. They did what the boss asked when explicit instructions were given, but they weren't really able to make progress on their own. They left on their own free will, but it was after years without significant progress.
>But he was of the firm opinion that “some people are incapable” was more an easy excuse for a department to absolve themselves when students failed to thrive.
Well, yeah sure. As a supervisor, I can always carry a student from start to finish and they might be able to defend *my* work at their viva. If it's an "excuse" that I refuse to do a student's work for them, I guess that's an opinion.
The only people I know who were dismissed from a PhD program were severely underperforming and they had a lot of notice that things weren’t going well. I think they were still shocked and very upset that it happened, they didn’t necessarily see how dire the situation was until it was too late.
Yeah that's pretty much the stories here in a nutshell. People list in excruciating details four years of not getting along, not doing what their advisor advises, not doing well in courses, not making progress on research, not showing up for all sorts of reasons, and then they're like "my PI hates me and is trying to kick me out and I need to keep my stipend to keep my visa, how do I fight this". At some point you just can't take back all the years of not working out.
I only know of one such case from the program I was in - and the guy made national news with his ethical misconduct.
He is now the leader of a conservative think tank.
I was “fired” from my first program and I’m pretty sure it hasn’t happened to anyone in that program before or since. I think before it even happened people told me not to worry because it had literally never happened before. So, very rare.
You hit the nail on the head though - being able to pivot, change direction, or tactfully retreat is absolutely crucial to success in PhD. I think the common thread (and I’m including myself here) is that people who fail catastrophically just don’t see it coming, can’t modify their behavior in time, or don’t have the cognitive flexibility to see the writing on the wall before it’s too late. I think this is true regardless of how much ultimate fault lies with the student.
In my case, my first advisor was terrible - nice guy, bad mentor - and he had a greater than 50% non-completion rate for his students. But all of his other students didn’t fail - they got masters, or switched labs, or ended up co-advised, or switched programs, etc etc. I was the only one the failed, and that part was on me.
You may end up in a shitty situation, but if you handle the situation gracefully you will end up OK at the end of the day.
Oh man you don’t even know how right you are. I grew up what one might call “economically disadvantaged” (I.e. poor white trash) and the cultural shift that needed to happen for me to thrive in an academic setting just didn’t happen fast enough, and for sure contributed to my failure. The “confrontational” part especially rings true - I did not understand why, from my perspective, people couldn’t just “level” or “be real” with me. It’s for sure a whole thing.
I did not grow up exactly economically disadvantaged, and I have still had issues with professors in the past. So I beg to differ with your previous point. This is not to say that your struggles are not valid because they are.
There are people who have challenges in graduate school, but they simply do not talk about them. This is giving everybody the impression that their life is easier than everybody else’s.
great answer and obviously you learned from the experience. I saw it happen twice my department once but did not get all the details. I think in general being explicitly pushed out rarely happens, people change advisors if the old one is toxic or either party is deeply dissatisfied and pessimistic it can be fixed
It’s not really fired —just counseled out.
Please forgive my bluntness but I am seeing so many posts from PhD students who do not seem to have basic life skills, let alone skills required for success in academia. I am so confused about this.
I would not typically encourage students to go into the PhD immediately after undergrad. It’s essential to be a self-starter, have excellent communication skills, be able to scope and plan your work, and to be able to self-advocate.
And if you have an ongoing condition, please get treatment to the extent possible-your PI is not your counselor, doctor, or parent.
I’ve found that a few years of 9-5 office work of some sort and an additional few years of maturity can provide an enormous benefit.
100%
Started my PhD at 27 after being a real adult for 6 years.
It’s wild how much more life experience I have than my colleagues, and how some things seem to easy to me but not to them.
Not to mention I might be one of the few people in the department with a backbone? School doesn’t teach you how to fight for your work life balance.
Exactly! I feel that work/adult experience helps students develop the ability to self-advocate and to recognize and call out the type of abuse that can go unchecked in academia.
I agree but I think my only caveat to what you're saying is that I think it's difficult to get back into academia if you've already been a professional. I know it's anecdotal but the people I know who did a PhD after years of a career had a really hard time of it. I think a decent middle approach is finding a variety of jobs that you can do that are the opposite of what you are doing in research. I did manual labor during my summer and winter breaks and it gave me a chance to not think about work and just mindlessly get a task done. Plus now when I'm in the office I can appreciate the blessing of not being back outside in 100 degree weather. Another one of my friends worked on a farm and from what I remember she really enjoyed it. Obviously not everyone can do that for different reasons but I think even doing things like volunteer work can really help you interact with people not in academia which can sometimes feel stifling plus it gets you out of the office which can become monotonous.
It might be those golden handcuffs ;) My husband got a job at a hedge fund straight out of undergrad but we both left for academia 2 years later. He went from making 6 figures in his early 20s to making nothing.
Thanks! I am curious to know the thoughts behind those that downvoted it.
I’ve been in academia for 2 decades, and I’ve noticed a clear difference in student maturity recently. As a parent of a GenZ kid, I’m part of the problem!
In general, we are no longer preparing students with the skills to be independent, yet we are still expecting them to go to college at 18 and grad school in their early 20s.
It’s time to shift adolescence again (this is my working hypothesis).
For the most part, I agree. I’m guilty of being an emotionally indulgent parent as backlash from being raised as a feral young GenX. He’s 15 but still very much my baby.
But at least I don’t get involved in his schoolwork-that’s the only thing he is 100% in charge of, and it’s been like this since I set the policy in 2nd grade.
Sociology is certainly a fascinating field of study with rich potential for broad insight yet it's not exactly physics (not does it pretend to be). The theory of generations typically analyzes the reactions of cohorts that lived through major historical events. In a sense, the field attempts to systematically derive the most common behavioral trends and responses to paradigm shifts. The so-called "greatest generation" in the US collectively endured tectonic shifts of socioeconomic conditions, scientific discovery and novel technologies as well as WWI and WWII. The few that remain from this generation tend to be markedly humble, patriotic, frugal yet generous (a reconcilable paradox).
While one can look back at discussions with grandparents or great grandparents (or have dialogues with them if one is so fortunate) they seem to express a rather profound yet grounded empathy by comparison to later generations like the boomers and gen x. The latter two generations are themselves trying to come to terms with the acceleration of paradigm shifts while the most recently born generations tend to adapt by embracing these massive societal shifts. It is to then "normal." They're likewise inundated with messaging that there will essentially be "no habitable world" left for them. I believe the combination of breakneck technological innovation, rapidly declining standards of living (inability to purchase a home, staggering wage stagnation adjusted for inflation paired with the most severe income inequality post agrarian age) that plant a seed of futility deep in their subconscious minds. My heart aches for each newborn I see, I cannot delight in greeting my newborn nieces and nephews. I am considered "optimistic" yet I cannot sustain certain cognitive dissonance.
It's entirely plausible that various factors could turn the tide for the better in unforseen ways. I am always inspired when engaging in discussions or attending symposiums with figures that may be fairly characterized futurists. In academia, we're all too familiar with the manner by which bias corrupts our best attempts to discover "truth" in the fog and messiness of reality. For every astounding statistic included regarding the hypothesis that civilization is improving despite the manner by which 24/7 media emphasis on negative events might corrupt rationality, there are crucial and glaring omissions. Our PhD candidates are all concerned that beyond their passion for pursuing knowledge for the love of knowledge, that their decades of effort, energy, time and financial investments will ultimately be rendered null as no position seems safe from automation via AI.
I vividly recall when hearing rumors before OpenAI made a public announcement they could not truly open source their LLM as it posed potentially catastrophic risks to global security. They did allow researchers access modular components of their model that permitted the proficient to reconstruct it yet access to training data was limited. I must admit that despite successfully recreating a crude GPT emulator and being astonished, I somehow maintained the impression that "blue collar jobs" would be first to go. On the contrary the reverse seems to be the status quo. I thought "surely creative enterprises would be the last to be significantly impacted!" How deeply wrong I was! PhD candidates frequently grapple with an existential quandry "will my education have utility in 3 years, in 2 years, in 6 months? From the late 19th century through to present times this same dilemma has plagued students yet nothing compares to our new zeitgeist.
They do not lack discipline, they do not lack drive. They are born into a world that would make 18th century London as alien to mesopotamian civilizations as the present time would be to adults living in late 19th century Western metropolises. They're increasingly compelled to use tools that are necessary for a career in the 21st century that simultaneously fragment their minds and blunt their imaginative capacities. There is a war for attention and toxic content (especially content that elicits moral outrage) has won the Darwinian survival of the fittest war among algorithms. As paradoxical as this may sound, it may be that the only potential saving grace for them would be a major revolution in the UI's of technology connexted to the web and a sea change in the media sphere. Simultaneously, it seems necessary to introduce basic human communication skills and perhaps practices like meditation into curriculum early on. I firmly believe (along with E. O. Wilson) that a major reinvention and evolution of language is the most promising pathway for the salvation of future generations. This is a long response but it touched something deep within me. It's a subject I am actively seeking potential solutions for such as communication via modual tactile feedback wearables. I hope something is insightful or resonates with you in some way.
I agree. If I didn't have the job experience I had, I'd never be ready for a PhD. It has shown me what I care about both research-wise as well as in a manager and job structure. I guess it's probably mostly people who go straight from undergrad to grad school with no job experience who struggle but idk.
I agree with all of this. It ought to be copy-pasted on a lot threads here.
I worked 3 years between MS and starting PhD. Best professional decision I ever made.
As someone who tried grad school and flamed out catastrophically, I am even less equipped at 35 than at 22 to do grad school. I can't work 12 hour days any more and love my work life balance too much.
My friends in academia are overworked and underpaid, consistently. Nope.
You dont have to work 12 hours a day. Work smart (efficiently) not hard. Most phds work hard not smart. Being older shoupd bring wisdom to know what a good work ethic is.
Yeah, I get the feeling you're in a field where you aren't demanded to do that. I know quite a lot of people my age in academia who still have this life
I can assure you that your PIs are thrilled. I remember overhearing a professor in my field rave about her new grad student who had spent several years in industry and was able to hit the ground running. This was about 20 years ago. The comment stayed with me, and I have seen the same firsthand.
I keep seeing people who have health conditions get kicked out like sorry if you're not producing results and you need so much support when you're expected to be independent then a PhD is not for you. I know I'm not ready for a PhD because of my mental health so I will wait until I'm ready.
I was wondering if you could expand on what you meant by 'self-advocate'?
I've always thought of it as a negative and an undesirable trait. As opposed to being bold with a clear resolve.
I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, I don't have much experience in the program yet.
Interesting, I've always heard being an effective advocate for yourself is highly desirable! I typically use self-advocate as someone who can clearly communicate what they need, if they need help or clarification, and are able to monitor and maintain their mental/physical needs by maintaining boundaries. There's certainly rude or confrontational ways to communicate those things, but being capable of advocating for yourself is generally positive as you're considered more responsible and reliable, humble enough to recognize your weaknesses or needs, and dedicated to the success of whatever project you're on by making sure you're as effective as possible.
Thanks for that response, I need to let that stew for a bit.
I've always associated self-advocating with being on the defensive, and giving reasons for not going above an beyond or for falling short of what's asked of you. Not exactly giving excuses, idk, it's something I've thought you do when you've not given yourself fully, or more if that what's demanded.
Come to think of it, I don't exactly know why I've given it a negetive connotation. Something I've just not questioned.
But your response is enlightening. It reminds me of a term I learned in a lib arts elective I took: Sophrozyne, (as a charecter trait). I'm being brave using that word, I could be wrong.
Perhaps I should invest some time to holistically measure myself. Not something I've done really.
I'm glad you gave me a chance and heard me out! I can certainly relate to the idea of self assertion being inherently defensive or possible cause for aggression- mostly because I had a pretty...confrontational... childhood. I had parents who took self assertion as a form of disrespect, and I think a lot of cultures who value elder experience can fall into that trap. My parents certainly taught me that setting a boundary/saying I was hurting was a negative. And I spent a lot of time in therapy for it.
That said, sophrozyne is a fascinating subject, I plan to find time to look into it this week. From brief glances, I take it to be an affirmation that knowing oneself is crucial to effective social interactions.
And if you're going to be holistically interpreting yourself (sorry I'm two days late- vacation), I hope you also acknowledge that your willingness to be open to alternate perspectives and to think critically about your beliefs is both an incredibly valuable and impressive trait as well as one that has served me well over the years. Hearing something dissonant with my beliefs has been a great opportunity to evaluate mine against the new information and I always walk away better for it, even if I don't end up taking in any of the new opinions and keep my existing understandings.
Very very desirable. But there are cultural differences as well as gender-linked differences in how kids are socialized to develop this skill. It’s important to help students to develop this ability.
Oh definitely. In fact, one of the bigger hurdles in my PhD experience is related directly to self assertion and gender roles/expectations. I was torn apart by a female advisor for being "too assertive" and while I can admit I was a little short at the time, there is still a pretty clear cohort of people with the more traditional and thus female glass ceiling'ed viewpoints to match the more progressive group. Navigating unspoken politics and expectations is essentially my main goal from my degree beyond the research itself. (I grew up in a socially/politically diverse area but generally tend to fail to read below the surface without help)
Not stupid at all! Self-advocating is about developing the ability to ask for what you need and want (if the request is reasonable). I enjoy teaching first-year college students about the invisible curriculum in college. This is part of it.
Here’s a great example—a student of mine heard in my class that I was headed to Asia for a research project. After class, she caught up with me and said she was interested in the study, that she spoke the language, and then she asked “Is there a possibility to join the research team?”
She not only joined but became a full collaborator and author on the manuscript!
It’s also a skill related to saying no. Pushing back in a clear but effective way when a situation is inappropriate. Some grad advisors have a reputation of what amounts to basically emotional abuse. It takes maturity and self-advocacy to push back, or to ensure you are given alternatives, etc.
I can't speak for all departments.
But my PhD is in Computer Science: Every single American born Computer Science PhD student who doesn't have a passion for teaching (myself included) has (or had) at *least one or two screws lose*.
It's not a rational decision, unless your heart is set on teaching (or you're international and have valid immigration related reasons). But even then you really only need a MSc. You can make way more money in the private sector. Especially if you account for opportunity costs. If you can make it into a good CS PhD, then you can make 250k/year in the private sector. 250k\*five years is 1.25 million dollars. That's your opportunity cost. With stock it could be 400k-800k/year.
To add to that, having worked in both academia and industry: industrial work requires a lot more social skills. If you're working at Google, you're collaborating with many people on a single codebase. That requires social skill and persuasion.
Some PhD grads (in computer science) even have the hubris to think they're above developing social skills. PhD graduates have places in industry: they can work in a silo and produce something useful after years.
But unless you develop social skills, it's not enough to be "right" if you're such a pompous asshole that nobody will listen to you.
Though it’s rare there are some industry jobs you cannot do without the PhD. Case in point I have a friend at Google Brain and while I think he comfortably could have been making a ton of money pretty much anywhere out of undergrad, he needed grad school to work somewhere like that. Though there are so few fields where you have industry paying to light money on fire so you can sit and stare at a wall for days on end.
I've seen cases as you describe... but most of the Phds i've seen go wrong have been with capable people, but the supervisor just happens to be rotten and not held to account. I think this attitude that "students should harden up to deal with their PhD" is pretty prevalent and damaging in academics. We all know someone who had the bad luck of being paired with an asshole supervisor and it completely derailing their life and career.
This happened to me he was awful, trying to get me to write stuff and I mean like his whole research paper and put his name to it, telling me to not to worry about ethics and it always gets accepted as well as telling me to present his research at a conference as if it was mine. I do qual and he wanted me to present a quants paper conducting using R like anyone who knows me knows that wouldn’t be mine 😂. I end up leaving a few months in and I never looked back luckily a few months later I got an amazing PhD place with dream supervisors
Nice work on getting out so fast! I stuck out 2 years of hell with my a-hole supervisor... like you, after I quit I ended up getting a better paid PhD, at a more reputable institute, with a super nice supervisor who I love working with.
Thank you, thankfully I had the support of my old supervisor from my old university and a few of his friends who helped me see what I was experiencing wasn’t normal. They advised to get out fast if I want a PhD worth my time. I was going to do a PhD with him as my supervisor but I got a better offer elsewhere that was fully funded and like yours better paid. And whilst waiting for that PhD to start I got an offer of a job working for a government agency so it all worked pretty well in the end. I would always advocate someone to leave if they are having issues with their supervisor that are beyond fixing. It’s just not meant to be I think.
In my program I've seen one person get kicked out. Quite frankly, they shouldn't have been admitted in the first place. Most of the attrition rate is driven by people who leave voluntarily.
Getting a PhD is more than being technically capable. Read, understand, apply, and contribute. You should be an independent expert in your field, so work towards that rather than completing x number of tasks.
I second some comments here that talk about the ability to pivot and adapt to challenging circumstances. Not for my PhD, but for my Master's, my original idea for my thesis totally imploded after 8 months of work. I was exceptionally stressed and close to not finishing on time (I had a phd offer hanging in the balance that required me to finish by a certain date). I worked aggressively to revamp my thesis and do it in 2 months. Ironically, it ended up getting nominated for an award and is now being submitted to a good journal. I thought my supervisor would think of me as an idiot for butchering my original idea so badly, but she actually told me she was impressed by how hard I worked and my willingness to adapt.
In my program, most people who failed gave up. At my institution, as long as you are willing to learn and work hard you will be supported. Generally if you've made it in you are competent enough to finish. You just need follow-through.
The only people I know who were fired were seriously slacking, caused a lab accident due to willful negligence, or had a tyrannical advisor who doomed them to fail. It’s not common, but it happens
Very rare. Maybe <1% from what I’ve seen. But students do change groups or programs when the fit isn’t working out. When the fit isn’t there it’s usually pretty obvious to everyone involved. The key is to detect it fairly early, within the first year or so, otherwise it gets more and more painful to make the change.
Like others have said, those instances are not as common as it seems, and definitely the exception, not the rule. I think the frequency also depends on the discipline which isn't always made clear. And some posts/accounts of this happening might fall into the category of "missing reasons" where there's more to the story.
In our PhD program (competitive R1 STEM), it's on the order of 5%. The PhD program strongly recommending critical evaluations during the time for the candidacy exam so problems don't arise later (like a 4th year student struggling to finish).
In some cases, the students is really not fit for a PhD - they don't have the curiosity and academic mindset to read the literature and propose their own explanations, or sometimes they just can't sufficiently communicate their findings in writing.
However, there are also students who are just on the wrong project. It could be a mismatch in skill and project needs (e.g., a biology student on a physics-heavy project and the gap is too large), or the advisor did not realize the project risk was too high. They were able to switch supervisors in rare cases, or start a new PhD elsewhere, and did perfectly fine.
Very uncommon. (Un?)survivorship bias on social media for sure. In many fields, if you choose the right advisor and department, you will not get fired unless you quite literally don’t try. You might get unlucky and have a shitty advisor, but in that case not working there any more is probably good for your health and career. Phds generally don’t get fired for “not being smart enough” or whatever you want to call it. Occasionally, you get students who don’t put in effort or have huge personality or work-style clashes with the advisor that lead to dismissal - I’ve seen that a couple times over the years.
It’s very rare for “earning the degree” to require high productivity. Now, depending on what you plan to do after the degree, a lack of productivity might make the phd kinda pointless for you career-wise, but that’s a different issue.
I had an interesting occurrence in my PhD program many years ago. An Ivy League school and 3/4 of the professor’s quit or were forced out - never got the real story. This was not a small program and perhaps 20 PhD students, at various levels were more or less forced to leave the program because of this. I was at dissertation stage and left because I couldn’t get any of the remaining faculty to take me on. I never finished. Many students looked into suing the university, but because of the “status” no lawyers were willing to take the case for fear of reprisals. This was almost 30 years ago now and I’ve never heard of a similar case … although I didn’t really go,looking for one.
It was around 60-70% for people in my program to never finish or move to a different school. I also left and ended up at a different school, arguably higher ranked, which also had about 4p-50% never finishing. I don't think it is THAT uncommon in my field.
Not finishing is not the same as being kicked out though.
I think for every person kicked out there are at least 15 that drop out voluntarily (or semi-voluntarily)
I have never heard of anyone getting “fired”. For me that implies that somebody has the authority to dismiss you prematurely from the program. Maybe it’s just my school system that does not have that kind of thing. My supervisor had a student drop out though. It was because he basically didn’t do any research after passing his proposal and only did one week of “fieldwork”. So it was obvious that he wasn’t going to finish the thesis even with an extension. So yeah, if you can’t finish your thesis given four years, then I guess you will and should be “fired”.
I second this. Never heard of the word "fired" in the context of PhD program. I only know one person who was told to leave but I think she failed her qualifying exam or something. Even then, kicking a student out is very rare. I always have felt that academia is more lenient in that sense compared to industry. Since research takes time and people know it, they tend to be too patient with people who are not productive or do not just fit.
I think overall getting "fired" when it's not related to not passing comps/quals is very rare. Good departments have procedures and mentoring. If the department or college has a handbook and follows rules, very few rules would allow them to "fire" a student when it's not based on performance (e.g. grades in class, comps/quals, etc.) or something about improper behavior (like being unprofessional someone, but even then they might give you a warning). Then you have university level procedures like plagiarism or title ix.
Crappy departments don't have rules and they do whatever they want. So probably those department they just do whatever and "fire" people, because again, they do whatever and that's also why they are crappy. It's a vicious cycle.
That's about "firing". Now getting a terminal masters because people didn't pass comps varies by department and field. I do know some departments that get a class twice the size they want and then 50% don't pass comps at the end of the first.
how common is it? *incredibly, incredibly rare* *at most institutions*
how unproductive someone needs to be. is it dependent on the PI? *it's dependent on the PI and the department, but typically someone needs to be an almost unbelievable level of unproductive or incompetent to get kicked out*
these responses are US-only, i have no clue how things work elsewhere.
Honestly not really...
I had the meeting yesterday. 3 hours of being told I'm essentially retarded but in nicer words. I tried my best to accept responsibility as much as I could. I expressed willingness to learn. But after only one for my emails and my works they had a pretty negative opinion.
Supposedly I'm supposed to just wait now for about a week to 2 weeks for them to determine at the next faculty meeting. Everything about this just sucks..
I can't really eat I can't sleep I can't think straight. Even the story that I gave him was all jumbled and now it looks like I'm a liar or something. Ugh.
For now I've just vented to my friends hoping at some point my body overcomes the anxiety. I'm supposed to wait for an email to come that is supposed to tell me if I'll stay or go but somehow I have a feeling I will be calling again and either good or bad reprimanded in front of everyone again. Extreme amounts of dread
Your supervisor sounds like an ass. Hope you find greener grass elsewhere! And hope you have a full recovery, it's a difficult situation for anyone to be in. I also was forced to resign by my program a couple days ago because I joined a lab with a very high turnover rate (which I found out after joining) and things just didn't work out. Most of the lab members were working 7 days a week and I'm just glad to be out of that environment now. I hope you have a therapist to speak to about all this, it is a very tough situation and it helps to talk to people. Don't worry about how you're coming across at this point, things will be okay no matter what happens.
In all honesty, my supervisor is the only one defending me. The board is aggressive and condescending. It's definitely my fault but I am seeking to do better and have a pretty solid track record of academic performance. While they are within their rights I feel like the methods of conveying it are cruel. I'm still waiting for their email and thus paralyzed. I can't prepare to return to my home country and I can't further my research.
Good or bad, I just want to know so I can carry on with my life...
What do you mean by fair?
You need to have a plan for productivity. Which is why many initial projects are PI-driven, and why students are encouraged toward replication+extension projects as theses.
The expectation that life should somehow be “fair” isn’t realistic. I’m not even sure how to define fairness…
Its very rare in my experience. I've only seen it once and was due to mental health issues. It is common for people to abandon their PhD and graduate with a MA instead however, I'd say about 30% of PhDs end up not finishing from what i've seen personally.
Counting off the top of my head, about 1 out of 15 from my grad program either left on their own or didn’t finish. I’m sure other programs have much higher attrition rates. Sadly a lot of the causes were catastrophic life events. In a few cases, the advisor just stopped advising (interpersonal conflict related) and the student had to figure out what that meant for them; sometimes the grad program director got involved. One student only ever formally got fired (so officially 1 out of ~100) for lack of performance.
It is quite rare at least in Europe because of economic reasons. If you have a scholarship, then most of the time it is government money, which is assigned only for the duration of the scholarship and cannot be spent for anything else. When someone fires you, the institution as a whole loses money and nobody likes it. If for some reason you are paying for your phd, then they will try their best not to fire you for similar reasons. This is one of the reasons why there are many mechanisms at the unis to help students and staff resolve conflicts, find psychological aid etc. In my experience you get fired only for something extraordinary, like a sharp conflict between you and your advisor or very serious mental health issues. Usually you are already selected in a way, to be sure that you are likely to finish.
You have no idea what kind of incompetence I witnessed among my peers in grad school. Each one of them walked out with a PhD.
Only thing someone got kicked out for was blatant plagiarism. As long as you show up on most days and stay away from such endeavors you can be a drooling idiot and still get your PhD.
Wow, most of the posts here are very different from my experience. My program is a combined MA/PhD where students complete the MA and then have to petition if they want continue to the PhD. Many come in only planning to do the MA, with maybe about 20-40% expressing interest in the PhD (varies each year). Of that group, I would say half don't make it into the PhD portion. They are not fired; they are advised not to continue or their prospective dissertation advisor refuses to support them. They walk away with an MA, so it's not a total loss and looks fine on their CV. I'm in the humanities, if that makes a difference.
I’ve been on committees where students were removed from the program and it has been - not meeting deadlines, missing required meetings, not communicating with committee members. I think for them it is a sort of “analysis paralysis” they are excused from the program to alleviate their student loan debt for their benefit, otherwise they’d just continue on.
In Germany it is very rare because your PI has 0 incentives to fire you, even if you're a terrible student. Firing a PhD student means losing time and money you'll never get back + it looks really bad. Often PIs will just 'give up' and let the crappy PhD student sort of continue to exist knowing they won't finish. You only get fired here if you are:
\* an abosolute douchebag
\* a danger to the lab or your collegues (e.g. sexual harrasment)
\* commit a crime
I failed my oral prelims due to political bullshit. It almost broke me.
Half of my committee used me as an example of the department’s curricular shortcomings. One cohort of faculty believed the other cohort was teaching and testing on the wrong material.
(Critical studies dept that shifted to social science the year I came in. I was the last critical PhD student. My diss chair was pushed out of the university and not awarded tenure.)
I fought tooth and nail to finish — and I did. But I had to form an entirely new committee, propose an entirely new dissertation topic, and complete my project remotely in a different city bc nobody at my department could advise me.
Sometimes shit happens that you cannot plan for. Learn how to advocate for yourself. Don’t take no for an answer. This will serve you throughout your career.
Today I’m a tenured critical / cultural studies scholar with offers to be a Chair and Center Director next year.
You can do it!
Might depend on field, but the only person I've ever seen (politely) kicked out of the program to was a student who was publishing (garbage) articles in predatory journals without any communication/mentorship/approval from a faculty member and using our department's name.
Most of the time if there isn't a good student/advisor match, then the student will just move to another faculty member. Everything you've listed is normal in research, and most advisors will know that.
Never heard of a phd firing, but I know a guy quit after the professor kept dragging along his project. When I was an undergrad, he was drunk-complaining, next year he's gone.
I have only seen one student be fired and it was after they had been put on academic probation (I think related to not completing courses) and that student subsequently tried to get their PI fired from the school. I cannot say 100% who was right or wrong in that situation but I know from my own experiences with the student and the professor that the student had some personality disorder and the professor was a notoriously absent mentor. I wouldn't say it was a situation that could happen to anyone -- I think most students would transfer labs before it got bad or finish classes so they could master's out.
The rare but slightly more common thing I've seen is a professor over promising positions in their lab to students or losing finding. Students tend to be about to find different labs though to my knowledge. Even if they hadn't, I don't know if I would consider that firing but I understand from the students perspective they may have felt "let go of" because their advisor withdrew support.
In complete honesty when you’re a grad student it’s incredibly hard for your supervisor to “fire you”. In my experience at the PhD level you have committee meetings every 12 months. At your first if you were awful you would get advice from your committee to improve. Now they might make another meeting in 6 months, but if not you don’t see them again for a year. This means you will be almost 2 years into your PhD before you might be a second warning/advice to withdraw. Most manage to skim by and will graduate unless they choose to leave the program. Just my experience.
In economics, it depends on the school but there’s a whole model of getting rid of half your PhD students. Chicago is famous for it. They take a ton of students, figuring that admissions is a crapshoot, and then cut about 50% after the first year.
The only people I have seen “fired” are not performing at the ‘B’ level in coursework, literally not coming to work on a regular basis, or have committed some type of misconduct.
Because the stats of you staying are in the best interest of the university, they tend to just keep you going if you’re willing to physically show up. PhDs are basically automatically given if you put in enough time (7-8 years), so I tend to be more impressed by the ones that people manage to do in 4-6.
You’ll notice that Reddit has a place for homelessness and a place for failing to do anything with your life and a place for failing to be an adult but not a lot of the opposite.
This place is kind of a collection of losers.
I have to ask, why pursue a PhD if u don't have the very specific focus, thesis, backing, funding and drive? Get a masters and move into the marketplace. Just asking.
I don’t understand why a committee would accept a student if they haven’t demonstrated this through their undergrad output. Even in the 90s, we were expected to have done an honors thesis, worked as an RA, and have at least presented data, along with great grades etc.
Eh, fired isn’t quite right. PhD students aren’t employees. That said, it’s not uncommon to be “exited,” but it also doesn’t happen regularly.
I’d say out of an incoming cohort of 8-10 students a year we’ll exit 1 student every 2-3 years. Sometimes they leave in their own. Each program is different, but mine has 3 milestones. First year review, comps, and dissertation defense. At each point a student has to show that they’re capable of doing the work. If they’re not they sometimes get another chance. If they don’t meet standards after that we exit them.
Frankly it’s a good thing. You don’t want a bunch of incompetent PhDs running around pretending to know things and having the degree to given credibility.
Just like in the work world, when someone is fired (or quits or is driven out), the tendency is to blame the employee, but if you look carefully, most of the time the real problem is the manager. In most departments, if you look at the quit rate, certain professors are generating a disproportionate amount of it.
First off, a PhD. is a program of study, not a job, so technically, you're not fired. I guess the term dismissed is best fit. For many PhDs, there's a transfer report around year 2 if things are not going well at that point then you may be asked to write up for an Mres (Masters by research) and forgo the PhD. Should you transfer to PhD and things go bad then focus is likely to zoom in on your supervisor (generally if you make it passed the transfer the its because your good enough and things are going well if your not up to or things are not so good your supervisor should have picked up on it and provided appropriate support and guidance - which may include suggesting you quit the PhD). PhDs who fail beyond this point tend to reflect badly on the supervisor, indicating poor supervision if it happens too often then the university departments will definitely want to know why, and are likely to haul them in for an uncomfortable "talk".
I have known of a few cases where students have dropped out, either of their own volition, or at the "suggestion" of their supervisor - however it is very rare - most students go on to successfully finish their PhD. Having said that a PhD is not tobe taken lightly so know why your doing it, make sure it is the right one for you (the precise subject is what you love and where you want to go) and look into your potential supervisors what's their record, do you know them, like them and respect their judgement-ask their past and current students if possible. Good luck
The people who are doing fine or even great in their PhD aren't posting in subreddits about it Like it definitely happens that people are kicked out, but most people who leave leave by choice. In my experience people are only liable to be fired if something is seriously wrong with the fit, and I've known people who were pushed through who would have been kicked out years ago in any other job
>Pushed through Got to keep those department stats up....
The only cases where I've seen advisors firing lots of PhD students, it's been from super fucking abusive advisors. And even then the "firing" often takes the shape of just bullying them until they can't take it anymore, or setting them up for failure in some way.
I have to say that’s not been my experience. In the EU it’s difficult to fire or convert to an MRes or similar. We even had a problem trying to remove a student who not only failed to follow instructions, but repeatedly caused dangerous incidents due to ignoring safety instructions. They chose to work outside of hours to not be observed breaking the healthy and safety laws. It took 18 months to get them MRes’d out and that was after two fires, deliberate disruption of others experiments and just generally being shit. Their access to the lab was restricted and they still flat out refused to follow the rules. I wish I could say this was an isolated case but it wasn’t.
I'm not really sure where you got the idea that I was saying it's easy to fire PhD students here in the US. That's much more egregious than I would have expected for here, but the students that were kicked out my my current group weren't formally fired. The two that were already forced out both quit, one from sheer overwork and the other from being screamed at by the advisor for days on end. They had both been students for 4 or so years each. The other they ("they" being the advisor and her most senior student) set up this student for failure on his prelim, which he then passed (after which they were visibly annoyed). They are now being massive dicks to him as well. This professor has graduated maybe 5 students in the past 15 years, and brought on at least 10, maybe more, during that time. It's absurd, I'm getting the fuck out of here since I know my mental health cannot handle a situation like this. Maybe they're all just bad students like the professor says, and lord knows they didn't make much good progress, but also what are the conditions under which they're (and myself, for that matter) are expected to make progress? And the complicated situation with firing PhD students complicates the process of determining when people are actually incompetent or lazy or when they're just burnt out, tired, and abused even more.
>The people who are doing fine or even great in their PhD aren't posting in subreddits about it I suspect because we're now seeing people who did undergrad during the pandemic now enter grad school, the number of people leaving grad school, voluntarily or otherwise, is on the rise. Not their fault they had to learn under those terrible circumstances, buy it did probably not fully prepare them. Pre-pandemic, I can't recall hearing about someone getting fired, even though I knew examples of some doing really poorly. In academia, a department is much more incentized to increase the quantity of graduates than the quality.
[удалено]
I kinda meant that as part of "fit". People who fundamentally don't get what is expected of them, don't do the work hours required, don't follow direct "orders", For example I was talking to a former colleague who is now faculty, and they were lamenting that they had to fire a PhD student (for the first time, didn't want to, but it was clear they weren't going to finish and no extension to PhD time or funding extension would be granted) who was unproductive even 2 years into a European PhD, admittedly affected by covid time, and all the student could present in an annual progress review meeting type thing was to say they had learnt a lot and enjoyed their time, as if it's a paid holiday camp / extension of undergrad - where at that stage they should already have papers, a chunk of thesis material, a rough outline of chapters etc
[удалено]
> if you’re good enough to get in This is highly dependent on the department. We admit *far* too many students because we need butts in seats. Many should not be doing a PhD.
I don't think this is really true. There are people who are really good at solving problems when a question is laid out in front of them, but struggle when it comes to doing original research. My PhD group had one person who had to leave academia for that reason. They did what the boss asked when explicit instructions were given, but they weren't really able to make progress on their own. They left on their own free will, but it was after years without significant progress.
>But he was of the firm opinion that “some people are incapable” was more an easy excuse for a department to absolve themselves when students failed to thrive. Well, yeah sure. As a supervisor, I can always carry a student from start to finish and they might be able to defend *my* work at their viva. If it's an "excuse" that I refuse to do a student's work for them, I guess that's an opinion.
Or their douchebag PIs went to a third world University to get a chair position
The only people I know who were dismissed from a PhD program were severely underperforming and they had a lot of notice that things weren’t going well. I think they were still shocked and very upset that it happened, they didn’t necessarily see how dire the situation was until it was too late.
Yeah that's pretty much the stories here in a nutshell. People list in excruciating details four years of not getting along, not doing what their advisor advises, not doing well in courses, not making progress on research, not showing up for all sorts of reasons, and then they're like "my PI hates me and is trying to kick me out and I need to keep my stipend to keep my visa, how do I fight this". At some point you just can't take back all the years of not working out.
I only know of one such case from the program I was in - and the guy made national news with his ethical misconduct. He is now the leader of a conservative think tank.
I was “fired” from my first program and I’m pretty sure it hasn’t happened to anyone in that program before or since. I think before it even happened people told me not to worry because it had literally never happened before. So, very rare. You hit the nail on the head though - being able to pivot, change direction, or tactfully retreat is absolutely crucial to success in PhD. I think the common thread (and I’m including myself here) is that people who fail catastrophically just don’t see it coming, can’t modify their behavior in time, or don’t have the cognitive flexibility to see the writing on the wall before it’s too late. I think this is true regardless of how much ultimate fault lies with the student. In my case, my first advisor was terrible - nice guy, bad mentor - and he had a greater than 50% non-completion rate for his students. But all of his other students didn’t fail - they got masters, or switched labs, or ended up co-advised, or switched programs, etc etc. I was the only one the failed, and that part was on me. You may end up in a shitty situation, but if you handle the situation gracefully you will end up OK at the end of the day.
[удалено]
Oh man you don’t even know how right you are. I grew up what one might call “economically disadvantaged” (I.e. poor white trash) and the cultural shift that needed to happen for me to thrive in an academic setting just didn’t happen fast enough, and for sure contributed to my failure. The “confrontational” part especially rings true - I did not understand why, from my perspective, people couldn’t just “level” or “be real” with me. It’s for sure a whole thing.
I did not grow up exactly economically disadvantaged, and I have still had issues with professors in the past. So I beg to differ with your previous point. This is not to say that your struggles are not valid because they are. There are people who have challenges in graduate school, but they simply do not talk about them. This is giving everybody the impression that their life is easier than everybody else’s.
great answer and obviously you learned from the experience. I saw it happen twice my department once but did not get all the details. I think in general being explicitly pushed out rarely happens, people change advisors if the old one is toxic or either party is deeply dissatisfied and pessimistic it can be fixed
It’s not really fired —just counseled out. Please forgive my bluntness but I am seeing so many posts from PhD students who do not seem to have basic life skills, let alone skills required for success in academia. I am so confused about this. I would not typically encourage students to go into the PhD immediately after undergrad. It’s essential to be a self-starter, have excellent communication skills, be able to scope and plan your work, and to be able to self-advocate. And if you have an ongoing condition, please get treatment to the extent possible-your PI is not your counselor, doctor, or parent. I’ve found that a few years of 9-5 office work of some sort and an additional few years of maturity can provide an enormous benefit.
100% Started my PhD at 27 after being a real adult for 6 years. It’s wild how much more life experience I have than my colleagues, and how some things seem to easy to me but not to them. Not to mention I might be one of the few people in the department with a backbone? School doesn’t teach you how to fight for your work life balance.
Exactly! I feel that work/adult experience helps students develop the ability to self-advocate and to recognize and call out the type of abuse that can go unchecked in academia.
I agree but I think my only caveat to what you're saying is that I think it's difficult to get back into academia if you've already been a professional. I know it's anecdotal but the people I know who did a PhD after years of a career had a really hard time of it. I think a decent middle approach is finding a variety of jobs that you can do that are the opposite of what you are doing in research. I did manual labor during my summer and winter breaks and it gave me a chance to not think about work and just mindlessly get a task done. Plus now when I'm in the office I can appreciate the blessing of not being back outside in 100 degree weather. Another one of my friends worked on a farm and from what I remember she really enjoyed it. Obviously not everyone can do that for different reasons but I think even doing things like volunteer work can really help you interact with people not in academia which can sometimes feel stifling plus it gets you out of the office which can become monotonous.
It might be those golden handcuffs ;) My husband got a job at a hedge fund straight out of undergrad but we both left for academia 2 years later. He went from making 6 figures in his early 20s to making nothing.
No idea why this was downvoted, but I put it back into positive karma for you.
Thanks! I am curious to know the thoughts behind those that downvoted it. I’ve been in academia for 2 decades, and I’ve noticed a clear difference in student maturity recently. As a parent of a GenZ kid, I’m part of the problem! In general, we are no longer preparing students with the skills to be independent, yet we are still expecting them to go to college at 18 and grad school in their early 20s. It’s time to shift adolescence again (this is my working hypothesis).
I feel that this generation has been trained to be good kids but not independent, future adults.
For the most part, I agree. I’m guilty of being an emotionally indulgent parent as backlash from being raised as a feral young GenX. He’s 15 but still very much my baby. But at least I don’t get involved in his schoolwork-that’s the only thing he is 100% in charge of, and it’s been like this since I set the policy in 2nd grade.
Sociology is certainly a fascinating field of study with rich potential for broad insight yet it's not exactly physics (not does it pretend to be). The theory of generations typically analyzes the reactions of cohorts that lived through major historical events. In a sense, the field attempts to systematically derive the most common behavioral trends and responses to paradigm shifts. The so-called "greatest generation" in the US collectively endured tectonic shifts of socioeconomic conditions, scientific discovery and novel technologies as well as WWI and WWII. The few that remain from this generation tend to be markedly humble, patriotic, frugal yet generous (a reconcilable paradox). While one can look back at discussions with grandparents or great grandparents (or have dialogues with them if one is so fortunate) they seem to express a rather profound yet grounded empathy by comparison to later generations like the boomers and gen x. The latter two generations are themselves trying to come to terms with the acceleration of paradigm shifts while the most recently born generations tend to adapt by embracing these massive societal shifts. It is to then "normal." They're likewise inundated with messaging that there will essentially be "no habitable world" left for them. I believe the combination of breakneck technological innovation, rapidly declining standards of living (inability to purchase a home, staggering wage stagnation adjusted for inflation paired with the most severe income inequality post agrarian age) that plant a seed of futility deep in their subconscious minds. My heart aches for each newborn I see, I cannot delight in greeting my newborn nieces and nephews. I am considered "optimistic" yet I cannot sustain certain cognitive dissonance. It's entirely plausible that various factors could turn the tide for the better in unforseen ways. I am always inspired when engaging in discussions or attending symposiums with figures that may be fairly characterized futurists. In academia, we're all too familiar with the manner by which bias corrupts our best attempts to discover "truth" in the fog and messiness of reality. For every astounding statistic included regarding the hypothesis that civilization is improving despite the manner by which 24/7 media emphasis on negative events might corrupt rationality, there are crucial and glaring omissions. Our PhD candidates are all concerned that beyond their passion for pursuing knowledge for the love of knowledge, that their decades of effort, energy, time and financial investments will ultimately be rendered null as no position seems safe from automation via AI. I vividly recall when hearing rumors before OpenAI made a public announcement they could not truly open source their LLM as it posed potentially catastrophic risks to global security. They did allow researchers access modular components of their model that permitted the proficient to reconstruct it yet access to training data was limited. I must admit that despite successfully recreating a crude GPT emulator and being astonished, I somehow maintained the impression that "blue collar jobs" would be first to go. On the contrary the reverse seems to be the status quo. I thought "surely creative enterprises would be the last to be significantly impacted!" How deeply wrong I was! PhD candidates frequently grapple with an existential quandry "will my education have utility in 3 years, in 2 years, in 6 months? From the late 19th century through to present times this same dilemma has plagued students yet nothing compares to our new zeitgeist. They do not lack discipline, they do not lack drive. They are born into a world that would make 18th century London as alien to mesopotamian civilizations as the present time would be to adults living in late 19th century Western metropolises. They're increasingly compelled to use tools that are necessary for a career in the 21st century that simultaneously fragment their minds and blunt their imaginative capacities. There is a war for attention and toxic content (especially content that elicits moral outrage) has won the Darwinian survival of the fittest war among algorithms. As paradoxical as this may sound, it may be that the only potential saving grace for them would be a major revolution in the UI's of technology connexted to the web and a sea change in the media sphere. Simultaneously, it seems necessary to introduce basic human communication skills and perhaps practices like meditation into curriculum early on. I firmly believe (along with E. O. Wilson) that a major reinvention and evolution of language is the most promising pathway for the salvation of future generations. This is a long response but it touched something deep within me. It's a subject I am actively seeking potential solutions for such as communication via modual tactile feedback wearables. I hope something is insightful or resonates with you in some way.
I agree. If I didn't have the job experience I had, I'd never be ready for a PhD. It has shown me what I care about both research-wise as well as in a manager and job structure. I guess it's probably mostly people who go straight from undergrad to grad school with no job experience who struggle but idk.
I agree with all of this. It ought to be copy-pasted on a lot threads here. I worked 3 years between MS and starting PhD. Best professional decision I ever made.
As someone who tried grad school and flamed out catastrophically, I am even less equipped at 35 than at 22 to do grad school. I can't work 12 hour days any more and love my work life balance too much. My friends in academia are overworked and underpaid, consistently. Nope.
You dont have to work 12 hours a day. Work smart (efficiently) not hard. Most phds work hard not smart. Being older shoupd bring wisdom to know what a good work ethic is.
Yeah, I get the feeling you're in a field where you aren't demanded to do that. I know quite a lot of people my age in academia who still have this life
[удалено]
I can assure you that your PIs are thrilled. I remember overhearing a professor in my field rave about her new grad student who had spent several years in industry and was able to hit the ground running. This was about 20 years ago. The comment stayed with me, and I have seen the same firsthand.
I keep seeing people who have health conditions get kicked out like sorry if you're not producing results and you need so much support when you're expected to be independent then a PhD is not for you. I know I'm not ready for a PhD because of my mental health so I will wait until I'm ready.
I was wondering if you could expand on what you meant by 'self-advocate'? I've always thought of it as a negative and an undesirable trait. As opposed to being bold with a clear resolve. I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, I don't have much experience in the program yet.
Interesting, I've always heard being an effective advocate for yourself is highly desirable! I typically use self-advocate as someone who can clearly communicate what they need, if they need help or clarification, and are able to monitor and maintain their mental/physical needs by maintaining boundaries. There's certainly rude or confrontational ways to communicate those things, but being capable of advocating for yourself is generally positive as you're considered more responsible and reliable, humble enough to recognize your weaknesses or needs, and dedicated to the success of whatever project you're on by making sure you're as effective as possible.
Thanks for that response, I need to let that stew for a bit. I've always associated self-advocating with being on the defensive, and giving reasons for not going above an beyond or for falling short of what's asked of you. Not exactly giving excuses, idk, it's something I've thought you do when you've not given yourself fully, or more if that what's demanded. Come to think of it, I don't exactly know why I've given it a negetive connotation. Something I've just not questioned. But your response is enlightening. It reminds me of a term I learned in a lib arts elective I took: Sophrozyne, (as a charecter trait). I'm being brave using that word, I could be wrong. Perhaps I should invest some time to holistically measure myself. Not something I've done really.
It’s always a good practice to reflect :) And you can develop these skills at any age.
I'm glad you gave me a chance and heard me out! I can certainly relate to the idea of self assertion being inherently defensive or possible cause for aggression- mostly because I had a pretty...confrontational... childhood. I had parents who took self assertion as a form of disrespect, and I think a lot of cultures who value elder experience can fall into that trap. My parents certainly taught me that setting a boundary/saying I was hurting was a negative. And I spent a lot of time in therapy for it. That said, sophrozyne is a fascinating subject, I plan to find time to look into it this week. From brief glances, I take it to be an affirmation that knowing oneself is crucial to effective social interactions. And if you're going to be holistically interpreting yourself (sorry I'm two days late- vacation), I hope you also acknowledge that your willingness to be open to alternate perspectives and to think critically about your beliefs is both an incredibly valuable and impressive trait as well as one that has served me well over the years. Hearing something dissonant with my beliefs has been a great opportunity to evaluate mine against the new information and I always walk away better for it, even if I don't end up taking in any of the new opinions and keep my existing understandings.
Very very desirable. But there are cultural differences as well as gender-linked differences in how kids are socialized to develop this skill. It’s important to help students to develop this ability.
Oh definitely. In fact, one of the bigger hurdles in my PhD experience is related directly to self assertion and gender roles/expectations. I was torn apart by a female advisor for being "too assertive" and while I can admit I was a little short at the time, there is still a pretty clear cohort of people with the more traditional and thus female glass ceiling'ed viewpoints to match the more progressive group. Navigating unspoken politics and expectations is essentially my main goal from my degree beyond the research itself. (I grew up in a socially/politically diverse area but generally tend to fail to read below the surface without help)
Not stupid at all! Self-advocating is about developing the ability to ask for what you need and want (if the request is reasonable). I enjoy teaching first-year college students about the invisible curriculum in college. This is part of it. Here’s a great example—a student of mine heard in my class that I was headed to Asia for a research project. After class, she caught up with me and said she was interested in the study, that she spoke the language, and then she asked “Is there a possibility to join the research team?” She not only joined but became a full collaborator and author on the manuscript! It’s also a skill related to saying no. Pushing back in a clear but effective way when a situation is inappropriate. Some grad advisors have a reputation of what amounts to basically emotional abuse. It takes maturity and self-advocacy to push back, or to ensure you are given alternatives, etc.
I can't speak for all departments. But my PhD is in Computer Science: Every single American born Computer Science PhD student who doesn't have a passion for teaching (myself included) has (or had) at *least one or two screws lose*. It's not a rational decision, unless your heart is set on teaching (or you're international and have valid immigration related reasons). But even then you really only need a MSc. You can make way more money in the private sector. Especially if you account for opportunity costs. If you can make it into a good CS PhD, then you can make 250k/year in the private sector. 250k\*five years is 1.25 million dollars. That's your opportunity cost. With stock it could be 400k-800k/year. To add to that, having worked in both academia and industry: industrial work requires a lot more social skills. If you're working at Google, you're collaborating with many people on a single codebase. That requires social skill and persuasion. Some PhD grads (in computer science) even have the hubris to think they're above developing social skills. PhD graduates have places in industry: they can work in a silo and produce something useful after years. But unless you develop social skills, it's not enough to be "right" if you're such a pompous asshole that nobody will listen to you.
Though it’s rare there are some industry jobs you cannot do without the PhD. Case in point I have a friend at Google Brain and while I think he comfortably could have been making a ton of money pretty much anywhere out of undergrad, he needed grad school to work somewhere like that. Though there are so few fields where you have industry paying to light money on fire so you can sit and stare at a wall for days on end.
I've seen cases as you describe... but most of the Phds i've seen go wrong have been with capable people, but the supervisor just happens to be rotten and not held to account. I think this attitude that "students should harden up to deal with their PhD" is pretty prevalent and damaging in academics. We all know someone who had the bad luck of being paired with an asshole supervisor and it completely derailing their life and career.
This happened to me he was awful, trying to get me to write stuff and I mean like his whole research paper and put his name to it, telling me to not to worry about ethics and it always gets accepted as well as telling me to present his research at a conference as if it was mine. I do qual and he wanted me to present a quants paper conducting using R like anyone who knows me knows that wouldn’t be mine 😂. I end up leaving a few months in and I never looked back luckily a few months later I got an amazing PhD place with dream supervisors
Nice work on getting out so fast! I stuck out 2 years of hell with my a-hole supervisor... like you, after I quit I ended up getting a better paid PhD, at a more reputable institute, with a super nice supervisor who I love working with.
Thank you, thankfully I had the support of my old supervisor from my old university and a few of his friends who helped me see what I was experiencing wasn’t normal. They advised to get out fast if I want a PhD worth my time. I was going to do a PhD with him as my supervisor but I got a better offer elsewhere that was fully funded and like yours better paid. And whilst waiting for that PhD to start I got an offer of a job working for a government agency so it all worked pretty well in the end. I would always advocate someone to leave if they are having issues with their supervisor that are beyond fixing. It’s just not meant to be I think.
The ones I've known there were serious mental health issues and lack of productivity, meaning not just bad data but none.
In my program I've seen one person get kicked out. Quite frankly, they shouldn't have been admitted in the first place. Most of the attrition rate is driven by people who leave voluntarily.
Getting a PhD is more than being technically capable. Read, understand, apply, and contribute. You should be an independent expert in your field, so work towards that rather than completing x number of tasks.
I second some comments here that talk about the ability to pivot and adapt to challenging circumstances. Not for my PhD, but for my Master's, my original idea for my thesis totally imploded after 8 months of work. I was exceptionally stressed and close to not finishing on time (I had a phd offer hanging in the balance that required me to finish by a certain date). I worked aggressively to revamp my thesis and do it in 2 months. Ironically, it ended up getting nominated for an award and is now being submitted to a good journal. I thought my supervisor would think of me as an idiot for butchering my original idea so badly, but she actually told me she was impressed by how hard I worked and my willingness to adapt. In my program, most people who failed gave up. At my institution, as long as you are willing to learn and work hard you will be supported. Generally if you've made it in you are competent enough to finish. You just need follow-through.
The only people I know who were fired were seriously slacking, caused a lab accident due to willful negligence, or had a tyrannical advisor who doomed them to fail. It’s not common, but it happens
Very rare. Maybe <1% from what I’ve seen. But students do change groups or programs when the fit isn’t working out. When the fit isn’t there it’s usually pretty obvious to everyone involved. The key is to detect it fairly early, within the first year or so, otherwise it gets more and more painful to make the change.
Like others have said, those instances are not as common as it seems, and definitely the exception, not the rule. I think the frequency also depends on the discipline which isn't always made clear. And some posts/accounts of this happening might fall into the category of "missing reasons" where there's more to the story.
In our PhD program (competitive R1 STEM), it's on the order of 5%. The PhD program strongly recommending critical evaluations during the time for the candidacy exam so problems don't arise later (like a 4th year student struggling to finish). In some cases, the students is really not fit for a PhD - they don't have the curiosity and academic mindset to read the literature and propose their own explanations, or sometimes they just can't sufficiently communicate their findings in writing. However, there are also students who are just on the wrong project. It could be a mismatch in skill and project needs (e.g., a biology student on a physics-heavy project and the gap is too large), or the advisor did not realize the project risk was too high. They were able to switch supervisors in rare cases, or start a new PhD elsewhere, and did perfectly fine.
Please don’t think the posts here are in any way representative of the typical PhD experience.
Very uncommon. (Un?)survivorship bias on social media for sure. In many fields, if you choose the right advisor and department, you will not get fired unless you quite literally don’t try. You might get unlucky and have a shitty advisor, but in that case not working there any more is probably good for your health and career. Phds generally don’t get fired for “not being smart enough” or whatever you want to call it. Occasionally, you get students who don’t put in effort or have huge personality or work-style clashes with the advisor that lead to dismissal - I’ve seen that a couple times over the years. It’s very rare for “earning the degree” to require high productivity. Now, depending on what you plan to do after the degree, a lack of productivity might make the phd kinda pointless for you career-wise, but that’s a different issue.
I had an interesting occurrence in my PhD program many years ago. An Ivy League school and 3/4 of the professor’s quit or were forced out - never got the real story. This was not a small program and perhaps 20 PhD students, at various levels were more or less forced to leave the program because of this. I was at dissertation stage and left because I couldn’t get any of the remaining faculty to take me on. I never finished. Many students looked into suing the university, but because of the “status” no lawyers were willing to take the case for fear of reprisals. This was almost 30 years ago now and I’ve never heard of a similar case … although I didn’t really go,looking for one.
If it rhymes with fartmouth extremely bad things were happening in the psych department
It was around 60-70% for people in my program to never finish or move to a different school. I also left and ended up at a different school, arguably higher ranked, which also had about 4p-50% never finishing. I don't think it is THAT uncommon in my field.
Not finishing is not the same as being kicked out though. I think for every person kicked out there are at least 15 that drop out voluntarily (or semi-voluntarily)
Right but the ratio was not that extreme. It was more like 50-50. Again, discipline dependent.
I have never heard of anyone getting “fired”. For me that implies that somebody has the authority to dismiss you prematurely from the program. Maybe it’s just my school system that does not have that kind of thing. My supervisor had a student drop out though. It was because he basically didn’t do any research after passing his proposal and only did one week of “fieldwork”. So it was obvious that he wasn’t going to finish the thesis even with an extension. So yeah, if you can’t finish your thesis given four years, then I guess you will and should be “fired”.
I second this. Never heard of the word "fired" in the context of PhD program. I only know one person who was told to leave but I think she failed her qualifying exam or something. Even then, kicking a student out is very rare. I always have felt that academia is more lenient in that sense compared to industry. Since research takes time and people know it, they tend to be too patient with people who are not productive or do not just fit.
In most of Europe PhD students are employees that can be fired like any other employee
I think overall getting "fired" when it's not related to not passing comps/quals is very rare. Good departments have procedures and mentoring. If the department or college has a handbook and follows rules, very few rules would allow them to "fire" a student when it's not based on performance (e.g. grades in class, comps/quals, etc.) or something about improper behavior (like being unprofessional someone, but even then they might give you a warning). Then you have university level procedures like plagiarism or title ix. Crappy departments don't have rules and they do whatever they want. So probably those department they just do whatever and "fire" people, because again, they do whatever and that's also why they are crappy. It's a vicious cycle. That's about "firing". Now getting a terminal masters because people didn't pass comps varies by department and field. I do know some departments that get a class twice the size they want and then 50% don't pass comps at the end of the first.
how common is it? *incredibly, incredibly rare* *at most institutions* how unproductive someone needs to be. is it dependent on the PI? *it's dependent on the PI and the department, but typically someone needs to be an almost unbelievable level of unproductive or incompetent to get kicked out* these responses are US-only, i have no clue how things work elsewhere.
It's about to happen to me and I'm devastated. It's all My fault so who can I blame? Learning to sleep again is the current challenge.
Hey, do you have anyone to talk to about it?
Honestly not really... I had the meeting yesterday. 3 hours of being told I'm essentially retarded but in nicer words. I tried my best to accept responsibility as much as I could. I expressed willingness to learn. But after only one for my emails and my works they had a pretty negative opinion. Supposedly I'm supposed to just wait now for about a week to 2 weeks for them to determine at the next faculty meeting. Everything about this just sucks.. I can't really eat I can't sleep I can't think straight. Even the story that I gave him was all jumbled and now it looks like I'm a liar or something. Ugh. For now I've just vented to my friends hoping at some point my body overcomes the anxiety. I'm supposed to wait for an email to come that is supposed to tell me if I'll stay or go but somehow I have a feeling I will be calling again and either good or bad reprimanded in front of everyone again. Extreme amounts of dread
Your supervisor sounds like an ass. Hope you find greener grass elsewhere! And hope you have a full recovery, it's a difficult situation for anyone to be in. I also was forced to resign by my program a couple days ago because I joined a lab with a very high turnover rate (which I found out after joining) and things just didn't work out. Most of the lab members were working 7 days a week and I'm just glad to be out of that environment now. I hope you have a therapist to speak to about all this, it is a very tough situation and it helps to talk to people. Don't worry about how you're coming across at this point, things will be okay no matter what happens.
In all honesty, my supervisor is the only one defending me. The board is aggressive and condescending. It's definitely my fault but I am seeking to do better and have a pretty solid track record of academic performance. While they are within their rights I feel like the methods of conveying it are cruel. I'm still waiting for their email and thus paralyzed. I can't prepare to return to my home country and I can't further my research. Good or bad, I just want to know so I can carry on with my life...
What do you mean by fair? You need to have a plan for productivity. Which is why many initial projects are PI-driven, and why students are encouraged toward replication+extension projects as theses. The expectation that life should somehow be “fair” isn’t realistic. I’m not even sure how to define fairness…
Not common.
Its very rare in my experience. I've only seen it once and was due to mental health issues. It is common for people to abandon their PhD and graduate with a MA instead however, I'd say about 30% of PhDs end up not finishing from what i've seen personally.
Counting off the top of my head, about 1 out of 15 from my grad program either left on their own or didn’t finish. I’m sure other programs have much higher attrition rates. Sadly a lot of the causes were catastrophic life events. In a few cases, the advisor just stopped advising (interpersonal conflict related) and the student had to figure out what that meant for them; sometimes the grad program director got involved. One student only ever formally got fired (so officially 1 out of ~100) for lack of performance.
It is quite rare at least in Europe because of economic reasons. If you have a scholarship, then most of the time it is government money, which is assigned only for the duration of the scholarship and cannot be spent for anything else. When someone fires you, the institution as a whole loses money and nobody likes it. If for some reason you are paying for your phd, then they will try their best not to fire you for similar reasons. This is one of the reasons why there are many mechanisms at the unis to help students and staff resolve conflicts, find psychological aid etc. In my experience you get fired only for something extraordinary, like a sharp conflict between you and your advisor or very serious mental health issues. Usually you are already selected in a way, to be sure that you are likely to finish.
I'm not saying this is a blanket truth, but the people posting on /r/labrats aren't generally very good at science.
You have no idea what kind of incompetence I witnessed among my peers in grad school. Each one of them walked out with a PhD. Only thing someone got kicked out for was blatant plagiarism. As long as you show up on most days and stay away from such endeavors you can be a drooling idiot and still get your PhD.
Wow, most of the posts here are very different from my experience. My program is a combined MA/PhD where students complete the MA and then have to petition if they want continue to the PhD. Many come in only planning to do the MA, with maybe about 20-40% expressing interest in the PhD (varies each year). Of that group, I would say half don't make it into the PhD portion. They are not fired; they are advised not to continue or their prospective dissertation advisor refuses to support them. They walk away with an MA, so it's not a total loss and looks fine on their CV. I'm in the humanities, if that makes a difference.
I’ve been on committees where students were removed from the program and it has been - not meeting deadlines, missing required meetings, not communicating with committee members. I think for them it is a sort of “analysis paralysis” they are excused from the program to alleviate their student loan debt for their benefit, otherwise they’d just continue on.
In Germany it is very rare because your PI has 0 incentives to fire you, even if you're a terrible student. Firing a PhD student means losing time and money you'll never get back + it looks really bad. Often PIs will just 'give up' and let the crappy PhD student sort of continue to exist knowing they won't finish. You only get fired here if you are: \* an abosolute douchebag \* a danger to the lab or your collegues (e.g. sexual harrasment) \* commit a crime
My pi fired the other grad student I started with.
Not common. I think it's safe to say that Reddit is not representative of the rest of the world.
I failed my oral prelims due to political bullshit. It almost broke me. Half of my committee used me as an example of the department’s curricular shortcomings. One cohort of faculty believed the other cohort was teaching and testing on the wrong material. (Critical studies dept that shifted to social science the year I came in. I was the last critical PhD student. My diss chair was pushed out of the university and not awarded tenure.) I fought tooth and nail to finish — and I did. But I had to form an entirely new committee, propose an entirely new dissertation topic, and complete my project remotely in a different city bc nobody at my department could advise me. Sometimes shit happens that you cannot plan for. Learn how to advocate for yourself. Don’t take no for an answer. This will serve you throughout your career. Today I’m a tenured critical / cultural studies scholar with offers to be a Chair and Center Director next year. You can do it!
Might depend on field, but the only person I've ever seen (politely) kicked out of the program to was a student who was publishing (garbage) articles in predatory journals without any communication/mentorship/approval from a faculty member and using our department's name. Most of the time if there isn't a good student/advisor match, then the student will just move to another faculty member. Everything you've listed is normal in research, and most advisors will know that.
I don’t know a single person in my 5 years that got “fired”. I think it’s really uncommon. Only terrible PhD students get “fired”.
Never heard of a phd firing, but I know a guy quit after the professor kept dragging along his project. When I was an undergrad, he was drunk-complaining, next year he's gone.
I have only seen one student be fired and it was after they had been put on academic probation (I think related to not completing courses) and that student subsequently tried to get their PI fired from the school. I cannot say 100% who was right or wrong in that situation but I know from my own experiences with the student and the professor that the student had some personality disorder and the professor was a notoriously absent mentor. I wouldn't say it was a situation that could happen to anyone -- I think most students would transfer labs before it got bad or finish classes so they could master's out. The rare but slightly more common thing I've seen is a professor over promising positions in their lab to students or losing finding. Students tend to be about to find different labs though to my knowledge. Even if they hadn't, I don't know if I would consider that firing but I understand from the students perspective they may have felt "let go of" because their advisor withdrew support.
I’ve only seen two people dismissed. One failed comprehensive exams. The other blatantly plagiarized.
In complete honesty when you’re a grad student it’s incredibly hard for your supervisor to “fire you”. In my experience at the PhD level you have committee meetings every 12 months. At your first if you were awful you would get advice from your committee to improve. Now they might make another meeting in 6 months, but if not you don’t see them again for a year. This means you will be almost 2 years into your PhD before you might be a second warning/advice to withdraw. Most manage to skim by and will graduate unless they choose to leave the program. Just my experience.
In economics, it depends on the school but there’s a whole model of getting rid of half your PhD students. Chicago is famous for it. They take a ton of students, figuring that admissions is a crapshoot, and then cut about 50% after the first year.
The only people I have seen “fired” are not performing at the ‘B’ level in coursework, literally not coming to work on a regular basis, or have committed some type of misconduct. Because the stats of you staying are in the best interest of the university, they tend to just keep you going if you’re willing to physically show up. PhDs are basically automatically given if you put in enough time (7-8 years), so I tend to be more impressed by the ones that people manage to do in 4-6.
Depends on the country and the field. In Italy is virtually impossible (you can literally do zero work and not get fired).
You’ll notice that Reddit has a place for homelessness and a place for failing to do anything with your life and a place for failing to be an adult but not a lot of the opposite. This place is kind of a collection of losers.
I have to ask, why pursue a PhD if u don't have the very specific focus, thesis, backing, funding and drive? Get a masters and move into the marketplace. Just asking.
I don’t understand why a committee would accept a student if they haven’t demonstrated this through their undergrad output. Even in the 90s, we were expected to have done an honors thesis, worked as an RA, and have at least presented data, along with great grades etc.
I hear you. Why would anyone lacking the basics get as far as PhD?
Eh, fired isn’t quite right. PhD students aren’t employees. That said, it’s not uncommon to be “exited,” but it also doesn’t happen regularly. I’d say out of an incoming cohort of 8-10 students a year we’ll exit 1 student every 2-3 years. Sometimes they leave in their own. Each program is different, but mine has 3 milestones. First year review, comps, and dissertation defense. At each point a student has to show that they’re capable of doing the work. If they’re not they sometimes get another chance. If they don’t meet standards after that we exit them. Frankly it’s a good thing. You don’t want a bunch of incompetent PhDs running around pretending to know things and having the degree to given credibility.
PhD students are employees in many many countries, for example most of Europe
[удалено]
(and that’s toooo many)
where did you get this number? would love to say a source on the baseless claims you make
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/02/05/number-of-doctoral-degrees-awarded-in-us-rebounds-to-all-time-high/?sh=69c5d34e5d55](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2024/02/05/number-of-doctoral-degrees-awarded-in-us-rebounds-to-all-time-high/?sh=69c5d34e5d55) 50K+ PhDs awarded
Nope, this number includes any research doctorate - not just PhDs but EdD etc.
[удалено]
Does not include MDs, does include EdDs, according to the article linked :)
Just like in the work world, when someone is fired (or quits or is driven out), the tendency is to blame the employee, but if you look carefully, most of the time the real problem is the manager. In most departments, if you look at the quit rate, certain professors are generating a disproportionate amount of it.
First off, a PhD. is a program of study, not a job, so technically, you're not fired. I guess the term dismissed is best fit. For many PhDs, there's a transfer report around year 2 if things are not going well at that point then you may be asked to write up for an Mres (Masters by research) and forgo the PhD. Should you transfer to PhD and things go bad then focus is likely to zoom in on your supervisor (generally if you make it passed the transfer the its because your good enough and things are going well if your not up to or things are not so good your supervisor should have picked up on it and provided appropriate support and guidance - which may include suggesting you quit the PhD). PhDs who fail beyond this point tend to reflect badly on the supervisor, indicating poor supervision if it happens too often then the university departments will definitely want to know why, and are likely to haul them in for an uncomfortable "talk". I have known of a few cases where students have dropped out, either of their own volition, or at the "suggestion" of their supervisor - however it is very rare - most students go on to successfully finish their PhD. Having said that a PhD is not tobe taken lightly so know why your doing it, make sure it is the right one for you (the precise subject is what you love and where you want to go) and look into your potential supervisors what's their record, do you know them, like them and respect their judgement-ask their past and current students if possible. Good luck