Slashdot Mirror
'Nature' Explores Why So Many Postgrads Have Bad Mental Health (nature.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
This week Nature tweeted that the rates of depression and anxiety reported by postgraduate students were six times higher than in the general population -- and received more than 1,200 retweets and received 170 replies. "This is not a one dimensional problem. Financial burden, hostile academia, red tape, tough job market, no proper career guidance. Take your pick," read one response. "Maybe being told day in, day out that the work you spend 10+ hrs a day, 6-7 days a week on isn't good enough," said another.
The science magazine takes this as more proof that "there is a problem among young scientists. Too many have mental-health difficulties, and too many say that the demands of the role are partly to blame. Neither issue gets the attention it deserves." They're now gathering stories from postgraduates about mental-health issues, and vowing to give the issue more coverage. "There is a problem with the culture in science, and it is one that loads an increasing burden on the shoulders of younger generations. The evidence suggests that they are feeling the effects. (Among the tweets, one proposed solution to improving the PhD is to 'treat it like professional training instead of indentured servitude with no hope of a career at the end?'.)"
The science magazine takes this as more proof that "there is a problem among young scientists. Too many have mental-health difficulties, and too many say that the demands of the role are partly to blame. Neither issue gets the attention it deserves." They're now gathering stories from postgraduates about mental-health issues, and vowing to give the issue more coverage. "There is a problem with the culture in science, and it is one that loads an increasing burden on the shoulders of younger generations. The evidence suggests that they are feeling the effects. (Among the tweets, one proposed solution to improving the PhD is to 'treat it like professional training instead of indentured servitude with no hope of a career at the end?'.)"
Permanent head Damage. Been there, bashed my head against the proverbial brick wall, was never the same after.
John_Chalisque
If the work conditions are terrible, and the success rate (presumably landing a tenure-track position) is so low, it would seem to me that the only ethical course of action is to make PhD programs *much* harder to get into, and to discourage students who are considering that career path.
Unfortunately, this may be directly opposed to the interests of the university.
Should we assume that 22 year-olds are not capable of getting the information they need to make rational decisions and intervene with legislation?
Personally, I'd be fine with requiring universities to find out and disclose the percentage of post-graduates who attain a faculty position (and perhaps their salary) within 10 years of their PhD. The cost of acquiring this information would be minuscule compared to years lost by people pursuing an ultimately futile career (who we would hope would be dissuaded once they understand reality).
It might be devastating for science (lots of work by high quality, low paid post-grads lost), but the ethics are clear.
Personally, I'd be fine with requiring universities to find out and disclose the percentage of post-graduates who attain a faculty position (and perhaps their salary) within 10 years of their PhD
They already do this (not out of legislation, but out of honesty), and have been doing it since way back in 1989 when I was applying for grad school. And the professional societies keep detailed statistics, publishing them regularly. Although please do note that "faculty position" might not be the best metric for success: physics PhDs who go to work as data scientists out-earn their peers in academia by a lot.
Why do people do it? Because they've been at the head of their class up till that point so are confident. really really love what they're doing, and so persist in spite of the odds. Not so different than your average minor league pro athlete. Wonder what the mental health of those guys is like?
The key to understanding postgraduate work in science is that it is not training and not preparation for anything, it IS scientific work. For the vast majority of us in science, we do not continue in scientific work after academic graduate and postdoc work.
This is because of the economics of scientific work. 1) We heavily subsidize research (not a problem in itself, but the labor market and overall metrics end up set by the government). 2) We prioritize publication over any practical metric such as jobs, public interest, or economic impact. 3) We bid out this work to organizations that can maximize publications for minimal cost, allowing them to violate just about any labor law they'd like in the process.
So "scientific research" is now defined as paper publishing. The people who "do" science are graduate students and postdocs, with a small number of other people directly involved. Once you're done with that stage of your career, either you're a professor, or your primary job is not "scientific research." Though we all tend to do a little publishing in industry and government, it's generally a very minor professional metric. PhDs entering industry have to play catch up on things like processional standards, the basic concepts of profitability, and the difference between technology and product.
Of course the people caught in the middle of this are doing poorly. They're in jobs that sound like a training position, but often there's no industry for them to train for. If there is an industry to train for, you're almost always better off taking a job right out of undergrad. The professors who manage our scientific workforce have no management training. The universities employing these folks are allowed to do things like charge them for the right to keep their job, and have special visas that ensure foreign labor can't leave the job. The "investors" in science (grant managers) have no actual metrics, oversight, or practical goals other than to maximize the churn of young scientists and papers through the system. So that's what we get.
As a young scientist, you can break out of this system. The key is to understand that virtually no one at a university is going to understand what you should be doing. Find one of the few companies making progress in a scientific field you like and ask someone there what to do. Oh, and do that before you apply to grad school.
Sure there are jobs that require that level of education. Thoracic surgeon. Biomedical engineer. School superintendent.
Many leadership positions that theoretically open to people with only undergraduate degrees are easier for people with (the right) advanced degree to get: lead data scientist, chief engineer on a megaproject like a new airliner
There are also many areas that need high educated people that are making do with less than optimal personnel. There's a critical shortage of adolescent psychologists in every single state of the US; waiting times are so long that a kid in trouble can take years to find help.
The problem is nobody is trying to match up need with supply; we encourage people to pursue their interests and assume that this will somehow end up matching the kind of people we need.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You've left out some of the real charms of the current era.
Profs claim scientific objectivity reinforces 'whiteness'
Professor Claims Math, Algebra And Geometry Promote ‘White Privilege’
The Appalling Protests at Evergreen State College
All-women's college asks profs not to call students 'women'
Professor notes men are taller than women on average, SJWs storm out angrily
Americans who practice yoga 'contribute to white supremacy', claims Michigan State University professor
Conservatives, Libertarians Are ‘on the Autistic Spectrum,’ Says Duke Professor
Victimhood Culture Only Getting Worse, Professor Warns
Professor: Small Chairs in Preschools Are Sexist, ‘Problematic,’ and ‘Disempowering’
Prof creates checklist for detecting white supremacy
Believing in meritocracy, promoting a "collegial" environment, and even deciding “to stay out of all of this ‘identity politics’” are all forms of tacit white supremacy, she claims.
She Carried A Garrotte!
I blogged yesterday about a mob trying to shut down Jordan B. Peterson and others at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, and wondered aloud, “Where are there police?!” Well, turns out one of the SJWs was arrested after breaking the glass . .
Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon — a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.”
I could go on, there are so many stones unturned.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
it's not over supply, any more than there's an over supply of musicians. Actual scientists just plain love doing science. That makes it easy for people to take advantage of them. Same as musicians get taken advantage of. And sports players. And video game programmers. And pretty much anyone who obsessively loves doing a job. There's always a few breakout successes (often times because a spouse or family member is handling the business side of things and keeping them from getting screwed) but for the most part we shit all over the rest.
This is one of the reasons minimum wage laws exist and need strict enforcement. It's also one of the reasons academia is heavily subsidized. These people will do really, really useful work if you let them. Or they'll get ground into dust if you let the suits have their way.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No. I did my doctorate almost that long ago, and it was not the same. I went to a "hard" grad school, but I was still smoking weed and getting laid occasionally. Plus, I graduated without a dime of debt thanks to being a TA and I got a tenure track gig within a year of graduation. Stuff like that is super rare in academia today. The whole game has changed. I hit the tail end of the gravy train.
You are welcome on my lawn.
There's a bit of a difference. College athletes succeed or fail in undergrad, and it's probably fairly obvious who's who after the first couple of years. While they're there, they're forced to attend classes in something else.
Grad students have gone through four years of undergrad, usually four to eight years of grad school to get a PhD, then as much postdoc as they care to do before they give up. They're not 21 year old jocks who can take their accounting degree, put on a suit and get an entry level job somewhere. They're mid to late thirties, the best in the world at something, and facing the prospect of going and competing with those 21 year olds for entry level jobs.