However, while most of us are happy to do that in whatever field we specialise in, almost no one seems willing to address the "elephant in the corner" about how OUR current academic system needs changing.

I guarantee you, if I was somehow able to fight and provide for you...

- A stipend for every PhD student (that was deemed capable of studying at doctoral level) that could afford a basic, but comfortable lifestyle (i.e. paying for rent in a shared house, food, travel without having to work part time)
- Working conditions in line with the rest of the UK population (reasonable working hours, means of recourse if your supervisor takes a grudge)
- Some proper career structure for postdocs/ lecturers that doesnt involve 80% of the trained workforce having to leave.

...no one on this board would complain. Yet when I want to talk about this, everyone seems intent on shooting me down.

About diversity, I was just talking from my own experiences of others (which I will admit is from a fairly elitist top 10 Russell group uni) and I will admit this is limited. If my experiences of PhD students being from fairly white, disproportionately privately educated backgrounds with supportive affluent parents is atypical, then none will be happier than I (It just means I REALLY should try to find work in another type of uni).

FYI, I keep fighting because I would like to do the job I have spent the last 4 years training to do, as an academic researcher. I don't believe the extra hurdles we face are necessary or helpful for us, our students, or the fields of research we are engaged in. Thats why I think they need to be challenged.

I always thought that being an academic was about analysing something, making criticisms and either support a model that is working well, or challenging one that isnt. Isnt that what we are all supposed to be doing?

Although I hate aspects of academia, and agree about it being potentially unhealthy, I would question the part about "thinking somone is doing something great for themselves". I, and most people I know, start off in research because they are really want to learn as much as they can about an area they are passionate about.

I don't know any that go in thinking "I am doing this so I can become great!". I would argue that working for a multinational, just clocking in for a paycheck and making shareholders slightly richer is a bigger waste of time, but thats just me.

I concur with your points of being taken advantage of and the overtime, but I still believe that if PhD students and researchers asserted themselves more, and bargained collectively, they could get better working conditions.

Thinking further, another thing that strikes me is that in my 4 years at my institution,is how little diversity there was.

In fact there was a huge over-representation of private school educated, middle class, white people (I am guilty of being the latter too). The few people I did meet from different cultures and backgrounds (one Indian scholar on sabbatical from Bangalore and a second generation Chinese guy who was another researcher) seemed to be from fairly affluent backgrounds. I suspect this is the same in most other universities.

I have NEVER met a black academic, and find this absence unnerving.

I can see there could be reasons for this, but I do think its scary that the conducting and dissemination of research is done by such a select group of society and you don't need to have a PhD to figure why this may be a problem.

I think one of the hardest things about quitting is the lack of support people give you, and the invalidating comments people make about "not cutting it". A close friend of mine quit her PhD (we started at roughly the same time), and she has gotten a fantastic job that is decently paid and secure and related to what she was interested in. She quit because she was sick of the isolation, the petty rivalries, and the constant hastle from her supervisor, not because she was deficient in any way.I felt bad for her as she got so much stick when she was making the decision from the department and our academic social circle "for not being able to hack it".

I would point out that it takes wisdom and bravery to know when to retreat and cut your losses, rather than just "staying the course" out of intertia. Not everyone recognises this.

My initial intention was initially not to be negative (and I don't think my first post is), but was to ask questions. I now seek some understanding about why academic "grunt workers" like myself, not only roll over and take it, but are complicit in keeping the status quo (by victim blaming, and displays of pointless machismo as witnessed on this thead).

I am not asking for sympathy, I am looking for answers and raising awareness (which is my way of positively engaging with the situation). I am not seeking to argue for the sake of it, but to explore the issues from various perspectives (apart from "Shut up" which seems to be the consensus from both this forum and my academic peers).

I used to have a great channel for my energy. It was called work.



I see a fascinating parallel to my situation and that of nursing students (who currently cant find work due to various professional issues). Most seem united and are interested in getting a better deal for themselves and their colleagues. They protest and their spokespeople lobby the government, but they don't go around telling each other that they are being argumentative, negative and should take responsibility for their poor choices.

I can think of two options.

1) You timetable in nap periods during the day, or negotiate to have less intense work earlier on. This depends if you are able to sleep easily during the day.

2) Maybe you are doing too much and need cut back on some of it. Probably quite difficult if you are struggling to survive, but it may be necessary if you are able to maintain your stamina in the long run.

As to comments like "You are being paid to train", my counter-argument is that our contemporaries on graduate schemes, legal training contracts, engineering prgrammes are also in a form of training as well (but with a salary that values them). Quite often they are expected to have FAR less responsibility and fewer expectations placed on them coupled with greater support and guidance.

And I wouldn't mind taking a salary hit if I knew I could make enough to live on. My girlfriend is earning about 24k now (while she does her doctorate), but knows she will jump up to more when she graduates this year. For me a life of short term contracts, constant fighting for funding and insecurity means that I can't think of buying a house, or having a family.

I agree with many of our problems being mainly due to the attitudes of others, rather than the intrinsic nature to our work. I realise that although we live in a knowledge economy, knowledge has to be commodifiable (i.e. sellable) in order to participate in this society.

I feel that the skills I picked up in my PhD ARE sellable, there is a mix of quantitative and qualitative skills, and various other things. Yet I am often made to feel that my PhD is a liability rather than an asset. Often people will dismiss my applications (for non-academic jobs) for being overqualified, or expectant that I will be this head-in-the-clouds boffin. I don't believe this is the case, but no one seems to want to give you a chance.

I used to have this problem funnily enough roughly around the second year point, but it got worse towards write up time.

What I did was to set myself a daily target, which started off small (like "I WILL write 200 words today"), which really is the size of a small paragraph, then I would let myself do whatever and not feel guilty , which was the worse part. The next day I would write 300 words, then gradually build up until I was writing about 1000 words a day which seemed to be my limit.

Maybe this could work for you?

I agree with you Jon, a level of compeition IS a good thing, if it is based on merit and talent. I see a lot in academia that are more talented in playing the political game rather than being brilliant researchers. Do you think this sort of competition positively deveops a research field?

I am glad you are aware of some of the difficulties, but feel that its not until you have been in the system you appreciate things. Having witnessed departmental coup de etats, harrassment suites and seeing passing academic fads destroy the efforts of researchers, its hard to see the effect of these unless at first hand.

I worked for a little before coming onto my PhD, but I would rather focus on the issues I raise, rather than my own experiences.

I wonder if anyone here has read Grapes of Wrath? Its feels very much like that. Comments like "if you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" are all very well, but serve to defend the system rather than try to advance it.

Additionally, I wonder what it is about us as a group that keeps us unempowered, under appreciated and accepting so much of the abuse we often take. Its not as if we are an uneducated or unskilled labour force that can understandably be exploited.

My hypothesis is that there is an "academic myth" that we all play a part in perpetuating. That we fashion impressionable undergrads to buying into an idea that academia is a prestigious, rewarding career that is achievable on merit and hard work. It is in the intrest of those already in the system either to keep themselves going, or to keep others under them subduded.

I feel if people saw the reality the picture would be VERY different.

My understanding is that PhD students are often taken on as a source of cheap labour for departments. Instead of departments hiring PhD researchers/ post docs for a new project, it is often cheaper and easier to recruit a fresh PhD student. The lack of regulation in supply and demand of PhD students means we have a a HUGE attrition rate and a system where only a small percentage end up doing the job they have been painstakingly trained to do. All the while fresh PhD graduates arrive, making the competition even harder.

This does not denigrate the poor PhD students (who most likely dont know any better). I bet if we were to unionise and collectively threaten to strike, most research teams/ university departments would collapse. Its amazing we don't do this.

From the perspective of someone that has just finished their PhD, and have been working a little in my field. I probably would have done something different if I had my time again because:

1) Although I have been trained for a role, its not that highly regarded outside academia. While they are transferable skills, SOME employers outside consider PhDs to be overqualified and underexperienced in the real world.
2) While I loved my subject, I went from having a very sociable life, supportive work environment, to being an extremely isolated. The time demands, the depth of the work and the fact that few others "get it" mean you can feel cut off very easily.

I would probably do something more vocational, that is better respected and has a better career structure.