Ask HN: Is abuse from supervisors as common in industry as in academia?

I think we are in agreement about the role of an advisor, but I sense that maybe we disagree about how active a role the advisor can be expected to take.

(forgive me below for exaggerating a bit to make a point -- I recognize we are literally arguing semantics :) )

When I hear "the student pushes and the advisor guides", it sounds to me like the advisor plays a passive, almost automatic role, like a mirror or like bumper rails in a bowling alley. Just by virtue of having received a PhD, one automatically becomes qualified to advise, and doing so requires so little effort that it is ridiculous to describe them as "good" or "bad" at it. Whether the student succeeds or fails is up to the student alone, and in the latter case, the advisor doesn't really mind, since there are dozens of fresh applicants waiting to fill the spot.

On the other hand, an advisor who is "invested" in the success of their students plays a more active role, like a coach. They see collaboration with and among students as essential to their own success, or at least as essential to their duty as a professor. They bring students into their own research, sharing their own knowledge (without spoon-feeding), successes, and failures. They put effort into building positive interpersonal relationships with students, perhaps through frequent group meetings and social events. Despite their busy schedule, they make an effort to give their students the impression that they are always available to chat.

With a few notable exceptions, most advisors I've observed make an effort to invest themselves in their students. They know what "good" advising looks like, but sometimes their career aspirations or administrative duties pull them away, leaving students neglected. In these situations, I think the structure of academia is more to blame than either the student or the professor.

The people who make it through PhD are either 1) lucky enough to find mentors/collaborators who are willing to play an active role in their PhD experience or 2) so motivated by external factors such as the need for a work visa that they are willing to push through a bad situation even if it takes 7-8 years to finish a 5-year program.

For academic advisors the situation is different because graduate students come and go naturally.

1. Academia is a feudal system.

To get in, you need a glowing letter from 'Someone Important We Know' from 'Big Name University'. Sure there are some admits with letters from less important people/schools, but if we are being honest, we know that is a big minority (I think this also accounts for the lack of diversity in science, but that is a different topic). To advance in your career (get a postdoc/faculty job), guess what is also the most important thing? 'Glowing Letters From Important People We Know'.

The next most important thing is 'Big Paper From Journal We Know (Cell/Nature/Science (CNS))'. The dirty secret of biomedical science is that getting 'big' papers very often depends on who you work for. Anectdata, but I've seen many garbage papers in CNS, where I can't believe it is in this journal, only to see ohhh it is because 'Big Name Lab at Stanford/Harvard/JHU' with a track record submitted it... I see. Glam journals like glam authors, if you don't believe that you are unusually optimistic or uninformed.

2. There is little or no opportunity to get validate-able credit for any of your work.

The only way you get document-able credit for work is your (maybe 1 or 2) publications and any fellowship/small token grant you managed to get (there are very few). I mentioned this in a comment below, but I have spent months of my life creating data and figures for grant applications (that were won or not), and I practically get 0 credit or recognition for that work. My name is not on the grant, despite me doing virtually ALL of the work for it (ideas and experiments) because I am phd candidate and cannot actually receive the funding from an NIH R01.

The vast majority of my work will go completely un-credited (both inside and outside of academia) unless someone inside academia that I might want to work with happened to see my mentors talk where they gave me a shout-out on a slide.

If I leave academia, I have no 'proof of work' for anything outside my paper and thesis (no one will read it). I can't claim authorship on the very important $500K+ grants that I practically wrote and won myself. Those don't go on my CV/resume, and if they did then people looking could look up the grant and see I am not in fact listed as an author or contact.

So in the end, what is a student or post doc in a bad situation going to do? You can leave after 3/4 years as a PhD student with no savings, and very few marketable skills, and start over in another lab or try to find a non-academic job that values half a phd? It is worse for postdocs, who have 'invested' 10+ years and either have to suck it up to get that letter, or leave with nothing (also no savings).

I think a lot of it boils down to the feudal system of letters+publications = value

[edit] wording

Currently experiencing this weariness and my output isn't great. Covid restrictions + WFH are making it worse I feel but ultimately it's my responsibility to do well. Any tips for not looking like a hopeless case to your supervisor at this stage?