I started my journey down the doctorate rode hoping it would be as I saw it from the outside, i.e. an opportunity to do innovative and meaningful research. However, what I have realized throughout my experience is that to achieve the title “Ph.D.” one must simply put up with the hierarchical academic, beaurocratic and flawed system and I am still not yet convinced it is worth doing.

On Publishing Articles

When it comes to the Ph.D., publishing is an important aspect, although, not for the work you do, but rather for the number of works you do. At least this has been my experience so far. Who needs an article that receives 100 citations because it has made a positive impact on the scientific community when you can write 100 mediocre articles that your colleagues cite once? This, apparently, is the pupose of publishing work during Ph.D. studies. However, I am not on board and don’t agree with this behaviour at all.

Ph.D. students are expected to research and write under the guidance of their professors, guidance which varies in frequency depending on the student, but on average seems to be no more than once a month for most Ph.D. students and often no more than once every 3 months. In some cases, the supervisor is disinterested in the work of his or her student if the project is not verbatim to their professor’s specialty, as this challenges the possibility that the work could contribute to the supervisor’s overall publications and help them move up the academic ladder. This, my friends, is very real in academia, despite universities boasting about the importance of innovation in research, and to be honest, it sickens me. I have worked alongside incredibly intelligent people during my time as a student and watched them be pushed to second or third author despite the idea and writing being their own. I’ve watched them sit quietly and wait while their manuscripts were used as coasters or fly swatters until someone else did what they did and they had to find another new idea. It wasn’t their fault that someone did it faster, it was their apathetic professor who either took on too many students or just stopped caring about work once he or she reached his or her desired title.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

I realize I am not the first Ph.D. student to wonder whether or not I should stay in my program upon reaching the halfway point. I write a blog….I also read many on this issue, alone. It is a daily battle for me, not because I am worried that I am not going to get all the work done that I need to. No, no, no, I am actually in quite good standing. However, I do not feel inspired to do good work for a system that does not appear to genuinely desire the production of good science. My concern is that I am not at all convinced that I want to be associated with this type of environment. I have friends in or finished with PhD programs in different countries and states and it is always the same story. They have to fight the system until the end and even still, it isn’t always the outcome they could have achieved. My peers and myself are held back by an ancient system that does not have a place in modern society. Brilliant ideas are swept under the rug on a daily basis and students lose confidence in their abilities.

I try to stay hopeful that the situation will improve in the future, it is too late for me, but maybe the students in years to come will experience academia as it should be: a place to foster their growth and bring their amazing ideas to life. For me, I’ll have to find a way to hold my tongue when faced with injustice since that has been the advice I’ve received from those around me. It is a difficult pill to swallow and I am still unsure that it is the right thing to do.

Thoughts are so welcome here and I would love to know what my readers think about regarding this issue!

Much Love,

Val