Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 226 posts

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

#151

Post by kowlo »

loceng wrote: post #39
chriskanan wrote: post #23

I'm a professor and have worked in industry. Let me break down the issues a bit on the education side, first. Almost always by year 4+ most PhD students are fatigued and starting to get very weary. I was definitely one of them, and at times I did feel like my supervisor wasn't helping my career development or giving me enough mentoring. He is a wonderful, kind, and creative person and he spent 1-2 hours per week with…

Is 1-2 hours per week really that much? I suppose they also spend additional time reading what you've written, along with revisions, etc?

When I started my PhD my supervisor said to me "Welcome to the faculty, see you in 3 years when you submit". They kept that promise.

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

#152

Post by munin »

Rapzid wrote: post #148
munin wrote: post #6

It’s not as common but the incentive structures in academia are uniquely enabling to abusers. In industry it’s much easier to leave tyrant bosses. I agree with your points. Many of the positive incentives don’t exist in industry though, an “up and out” culture is rarer in industry. When it works in academia your supervisor is positively invested in your growth, in general in industry your supervisor doesn’t care abou…

> In industry it’s much easier to leave tyrant bosses. Well, there is a lot of industry we collectively turn a blind eye to. Meat packing facility jobs is a hot topic right now due to stories about COVID conditions. The workers in the facilities are treated like the human equivalent of the livestock they process. But the employer is often the "only game in town" for those workers. Even if it's not impossible for them…

I appreciate this but in the context of this discussion when a PhD asks “is it better in industry” they do not mean going to work at a meat packing plant.

Your larger point is true though and it would be great for there to be equity and dignity for all people of all professions!

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

#154

Post by aborsy »

temp8964 wrote: post #63
sokoloff wrote: post #26

I think there’s a default assumption in academia that students bring the motivation and perspiration to their work. The advisor doesn’t pull them through the program; the student pushes and the advisor guides. My spouse and several friends have PhDs and I do not, so my exposure is secondhand, but when I hear that circle of friends/friends-of-friends complaining about poor advisors, I often hear details about the grad…

Some people fail to grasp the idea that the world does not always work surround them. And they have a very different definition of "abuse" than others, which basically goes to: you are abusing me if you don't actively take care of my emotions. For those people, it is much easier to find "abuses". Academic supervisors are not your personal friends. They have no interest in observing your emotions, because they have a…

I agree with this.

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

#155

Post by jpeloquin »

nnmg wrote: post #96
phdonewiththis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recognition of my work, at least earlier in my graduate program, was actually one of the few things I've been happy with -- good supervisors will be very clear in crediting their students for implementing projects (early in the students' grad careers) and figuring out how to extend projects and drive them forward (later in the students' grad careers). For instance, when giving conference talks, my PI and others will…

I totally agree, recognition is a big deal, but also very ephemeral and kind of an empty gesture. My mentors always credit me in talks they give (they are excellent and I am happy with them), 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 ALL of the work…

> 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.

It's entirely expected to list accomplishments and responsibilities on your CV/resume. If you brought in $X, say so. If a prospective employer is skeptical they can call your references.

Edit: Many (most?) grants don't technically list any authors anyway, just recipients.

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

#156

Post by mathattack »

I think you should look at the incentives...

In the academic world, tenured professors are rarely fired for bad behavior. Their primary incentive is to create grad students who cite their work. (“Expand on the path they’ve laid”). This means they can tune out or abuse anyone not part of their citation factory with relatively little cost. As long as there is a ready supply of new students each year they are fine.

In the professional world the incentives are from the market. If you can’t generate revenue or funding you die. Leaders of small companies can be abusive to get things done. As the companies scale, abusive leaders find it harder to attract talent and bad managers tend to get weeded out by the market for talent. (Jobs and Musk are exceptions) As companies turn into monopolies focused on scale there are less external pressures and toxic behavior can return as turf wars trump market pressures.

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

#158

Post by weregiraffe »

mathattack wrote: post #156

I think you should look at the incentives... In the academic world, tenured professors are rarely fired for bad behavior. Their primary incentive is to create grad students who cite their work. (“Expand on the path they’ve laid”). This means they can tune out or abuse anyone not part of their citation factory with relatively little cost. As long as there is a ready supply of new students each year they are fine. In t…

>Their primary incentive is to create grad students who cite their work.

That's not true, the primary incentive is to generate new articles, which allow you to get more grants, which allow you to hire more grad students who generate even more articles.

And the primary incentive of the grad student is to write as many articles as well, because good articles are what will allow them to advance in the academy. So really, motivations of supervisors and grad students generally align, and abusive PIs basically sabotage themselves.

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

#159

Post by _v7gu »

Since you have a throwaway account, why not name and shame? At worst, it would give some information any student who was thinking about applying to your department.

Lab sciences tend to have accepted "the way things" go: your advisors got through some abuse too, so they think it's natural. I think some additional fuel comes from that you have to have an advisor to get into grad school. I'm from a field where the order is reversed (we have two years before finalizing our advisor, and changing is less of an hassle) and such abuse is much rarer. It might also have to do with my field's obsession with freely flowing information: people can just avoid advisors who are documented to be problematic.

As some kind of glue to bind this together, I offer you the plight of HB1 workers. They are tied to their jobs similarly to the way PhD students are tied to their advisors. Yes they could change their jobs, but it's a big hassle and leaves you at the risk of having to leave the country/dropping out of the program. And we also see tons of abuse directed specifically toward these workers, even when others have it good.

So my point is as long as you haven't forcibly bound yourself to a job, you're less likely to receive that kind of abuse. And in the worst case (if you encounter one of many, many shitty bosses), you can just leave for greener pastures.

Post reply on HN