‘A toxic culture of overwork’: The graduate student mental health crisis

So that makes it better? I'd have thought that, if academic culture is seen as exhausting and exploitative, a 60-hour work week would not be seen as anything different, regardless of the salary.

If a higher salary makes enough of a difference- well then, is that what this article is about? Giving graduate students more money for their work?

Most continental EU countries used to have a different system before the Bologna Bachelor/Master system. In the prior case, many countries simply did not have a Bachelor equivalent. In France, Spain, Netherlands and Germany, you'd by default do a Masters-level degree. As such, a Masters is more continued education - it does not imply a big cut from a "practical degree" toward research. Therefore, your assessment is correct.

But it is only half correct, because the other side is that in Europe, research universities and their degrees are meant to be for academic purposes. Most countries, especially German speaking countries, have entirely different systems (Vocational, applied universities) for students studying for a job.

In contrast to English-speaking countries, a vocational career is very much a proper thing to do and need not imply "failure" in any way. In fact, the strength of the German economy (and why firms moved back there from China), is the extremely high qualification of the median "technician".

It is still the case that many jobs (like nursing) are not taught at a university, simply because there is no path to academic research. On the other hand, the vocational education is not in any way inferior to a college degree in English-speaking countries.

A university was meant to prepare for academic research. That is why despite the first point, degrees in continental Europe were often more focused on research than on succeeding in a job.

An indicator of this can be seen by the lower rate of college graduates. This is often understood as a negative indicator internationally, but it is not really true. Yes, less people do college degrees, but college degrees are not the only possibility of qualification.

From my own experience, and I think many would agree, I think that the very high quality vocational education (and the fact that it is officially recognized) is equal if not sometimes better to prepare for a job. Especially the dual system, where you learn while working in a company for half the time, and go to a school the other half.

There is no doubt that this system is one of the reasons why the engineering sector in continential Europe has been doing much better than in the UK.

So in closing yes, the Master is a continuation degree. But, from the start, university is much more research focused. These things, of course, are changing now.

Nothing in my professional 15 year career has come anywhere remotely close to the brutal, absurd reality of what I’ve seen graduate/PhD students go through.

I think academia is nearing a kind of crisis akin to what the the Catholic Church is going through with rampant sex abuse. Diminishing, unimpressive returns in output (aside from a few bright areas), and dark secrets continually being covered up/brushed aside.

Academia needs to do some serious soul searching.

Not everyone can gain a top position in any field. But in most industries, there are plenty of positions where you can make meaningful contributions. We know that most humans need to feel useful for mental health.

In academia, there are increasingly few viable career paths where you are not required to beat out everyone. The further you progress, the harder it becomes to switch to industry. Implied in this is that the further you go, the more risk you must be willing to take, and the more stress you are under.

In my country, the system for selecting professors is not very meritocratic. Older professors frequently would not have an ounce of success if they were required to prove themselves in the current situation.

In addition, there are very few positions to do research below a professor level, and these positions are precarious and do not offer a lot of options for meaningful contribution.

This places extreme stress on graduate students - in addition to everything being said here. As you progress in your PhD, you are either at the very top, or you have to fear that your career will go nowhere. Remember, this is a group of people that already selected on wanting to do research, seeing research as their goal in life.

This is a systemic pressure of extreme magnitude. If you fail, which is statistically likely, then you will be in a (comparatively) bad position to go after other careers. In addition, you are most likely a person who does not care primarily about money and wealth. Thus, options for a meaningful life decline as risk increases.

The success or failure is determined by many factors our of your control. Like your advisor's behavior, how the network is utilized, if you are lucky to work on a hot subject, if your contribution is recognized and so forth. The locus of control is far out of your reach, more so than in other industries. And if you fail, all the options you set for yourself in your life vanish.

It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize this has an extreme effect on the psyche of graduate students. It's more than publish or perish. It's publish or face the void.

I dont' think everyone appreciates this, actually. But, if it's bad for your mental health to go through the pressure of a PhD for three or four years- how much worse can it be to keep this up for the next 40 years or so, as a professor? And now you are under even more pressure because you're responsible for your students' careers also.

This is my biggest doubt about continuing in academia after I finish my PhD (if I do). I realised that my advisor is always on a tight budget - on everything: funding, time, attention, interest... Do I really want to put myself in that position?