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

Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

blog.usejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 148 posts

Re: Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

#101

Post by waterhouse »

MereInterest wrote: post #86
waterhouse wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to boast about it What the actual fuck? Why would anyone who loves their wife or husband choose to enter such a program? (Best-case scenario: a few years of data produced this anomalous result, someone noticed it and decided to draw attention to it, and it has since scared away all married students, so that there will never be any future data points to contradict it.) Still, from what I know about medical school an…

That was more or less my reaction as well. I could understand there being a few years of anomalous data as a result of small sample size, but to then boast of it rather than taking it as a sign of very serious issues doubles down on a bad sign. I agree that the 24-hour shifts are ridiculous. I could see some potential benefit for reducing the number of shift handoffs (e.g. 12-hour shifts expose patients to 2 shift ch…

> the tone of that article was definitely odd

Yeah, I interpret it as self-serving propaganda and mendacity. I will assume the worst at every turn—for example, that the supportive quotes are cherry-picked; that they insert pictures of smiling doctors to try to make people think those opinions are normal; that they made certain that the dissenting doctor's opinion was described as "a minority opinion", and was immediately followed with "Dr. Mathis did acknowledge, however, that the ACGME change in requirements was here to stay"; that the "members of the AMA’s Resident and Fellow Section" they apparently polled were cherry-picked; that they asked several poll questions and chose to report the one with the most favorable result (and that "Do you think it's a good idea?" scored worse than "Do you think it's better than 16-hour shifts?"); that they reported it as "a majority" because it sounds higher than "52%"; et cetera.

This is unfair, but I expect it's the best starting point for understanding.

> Similarly, it takes as a given that after a 16-hour shift, you only get 8 hours off

Yeah, it appears to be easier to work for an additional 8 hours and get the whole next day off, than to persuade those who choose the shifts to let you come in a couple of hours later on the day following a 16-hour shift.

Re: Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

#102

Post by belval »

DanBC wrote: post #90
chasd00 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been on a number of conference calls where people (both male and female) break down in tears from pressure or bad coworkers. Tears aren't all that rare or a big deal.

WTF yes they are. Only an utterly dysfunctional corporate culture would tolerate putting people under that amount of stress. Ignoring "be a decent human being" for a moment, and only looking at the money (because this is one way to communicate with dysfunctional corps): companies have a duty of care to protect their staff from harm, and this includes mental distress. By not addressing the abuse the company is leaving…

To be clear, I 200% agree with you (if there is such a thing), but it is still a normal state of affairs in multiple fields. I never personally lived it, but a few people close to me worked in healthcare and that kind of "brings you to tear" workplace abuse is downright common. Demeaning comments and forced overtime are a weekly if not daily occurrence.

Should they accept it? I guess not, but once it's normalized they partake as well and it doesn't change.

Re: Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

#104

Post by belval »

iokevins wrote: post #22
GlenTheMachine wrote: post #2

MIT is FAR from the only offender here, so much so that I find it odd to be calling MIT out in particular. And abuse takes a lot of forms. My advisor once went eighteen months without ever laying eyes on one of his doctoral students.

caltech

As someone who wanted to apply at Caltech for my masters, would you mind elaborating?

Re: Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

#105

Post by m0zg »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #41
m0zg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you don't get to stick around if you abuse people to the extent described in the article. At least I haven't seen it, in a quarter century of my adult life. I quite frequently see folks who treat any demands that they do what they've signed up to do as "abuse" though. Think about it: say you are a judge and you wanted to _really_ understand why someone is divorcing their spouse. Would you listen to just one s…

> you don't get to stick around if you abuse people to the extent described in the article What do you make of the Me Too movement?

That's a good question, so I'll answer it with a question. Do you think Joe Biden should withdraw from the race due to the "credible" rape accusation? If the answer is "no", because there's no hard evidence, then we concur.

Re: Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

#106

Post by kkylin »

croissants wrote: post #16

Unsolicited advice for any potential PhD students choosing between schools/advisors: you should try very hard to talk to current PhD students, preferably in person or at least over the phone or video call (at any rate, not in writing). Try to talk to as many as possible. Good advisors will probably have a few students who will speak up for them, and great advisors almost certainly will. In contrast, bad advisors will…

As a tenured professor (math), I generally agree but would say it a little differently: yes, definitely talk to students and avoid advisors when there are warning signs. OTOH, even "great" advisors that everyone loves may not be a good fit for you. Like any other personal relationship, advisor-advisee is a function of both you and the advisor, and you need to find one who fits you well. This goes beyond intellectual interests into personality, advising style, etc.

For example, some advisors are very hands-on in terms of giving guidance on projects, while others (like my own) are very much hands-off and lets the student find their own way. The latter worked for me, but isn't everyone's cup of tea. The former is great for students who like more guidance (esp at the beginning of research) but is not for every student. The same goes to other areas of advisor-advisee relations: paper writing, job hunting, etc.

Edit: to address a main point in the article: don't get me wrong, there certainly is such a thing as abuse. "Compatibility" isn't everything. I was just pointing out that it is an important consideration in choosing advisors; a great advisor for your friends may not be great for you.

Re: Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

#107

Post by sokoloff »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #63
ColanR wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you check that? I remember there was a (rumored) suicide at my school while I was there, and it was hushed up really well so that even a lot of students wouldn't have heard about it. Far as I know, there isn't a searchable database of 'suicides per school'.

Web search for obits. If someone dies young and the reason isn't clearly stated, it's suicide.

Or overdose.

Re: Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

#108

Post by m0zg »

croissants wrote: post #33
m0zg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you don't get to stick around if you abuse people to the extent described in the article. At least I haven't seen it, in a quarter century of my adult life. I quite frequently see folks who treat any demands that they do what they've signed up to do as "abuse" though. Think about it: say you are a judge and you wanted to _really_ understand why someone is divorcing their spouse. Would you listen to just one s…

> you don't get to stick around if you abuse people to the extent described in the article It's very uncommon for student complaints to affect a professor's employment, especially a tenured one. As long as the professor brings in grant money, doesn't piss off the entire department, and graduates at least a few students, they are probably fine. It would take something beyond generic cruelty to students for a person th…

If this account were to be taken at face value (which it shouldn't be until evidence is presented), then the professor was abusing everyone for years, not just a handful of students. That, indeed, would not be allowed to continue.

I'm getting sick and tired of people taking on the role of judge, jury, and executioner, with zero corroboration or hard evidence.

Re: Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

#109

Post by not2b »

z3ncyberpunk wrote: post #95
harry8 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good way to find out who is liked. Terrible way to find out who is good. Stalinist managment style. Pretty vile. I heard Steve Jobs is totally amazing and wonderful and cool and wise but sucks so hard at noticing talent he has fall back on techniques like randomly claiming people suck and seeing the response. Bet you'd get a lacklustre response from that.

He wasn't that wise either though, his only real talent was and marketing and being able to give a charismatic speech

He was an abusive jerk, but he did a lot more right than marketing and speechmaking.

Re: Abuse isn’t an “advising style”: Consequences of MIT sheltering abusive mentors

#110

Post by dreamcompiler »

waterhouse wrote: post #79
MereInterest wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Divorces, too. A family member was applying to med schools, and during one of the visits there was a boast of a >100% divorce rate among students. Every married student who entered that program was divorced by the end, as were some who got married during the program. To have such a stressful program is bad enough, but to boast about it as a sign of prestige and dedication is even worse.

> to boast about it What the actual fuck? Why would anyone who loves their wife or husband choose to enter such a program? (Best-case scenario: a few years of data produced this anomalous result, someone noticed it and decided to draw attention to it, and it has since scared away all married students, so that there will never be any future data points to contradict it.) Still, from what I know about medical school an…

I don't think I'd want to drive across a bridge if one of the main criteria for career success for a civil engineer was "ability to pull all-nighters 3 times a week for many months." And yet when we go to the hospital that's exactly who is treating us.
Post reply on HN