Bad experience during PhD, due to start Postdoc and still unhappy

[purifymymind]

DB has just completed his PhD at a world renowned UK university in a STEM subject. He didn't have a good time, and almost left on a number of occasions. He said the issue was poor supervision. I'm not sure if this is unusual or not, but his supervisor didn't even turn up for his viva. He also didn't like the politics, which he felt was unique to the institution.

DP has got a postdoc starting soon in an EU country. It's his last attempt at trying to make a success of academia. However he is still feeling really unhappy and I was wondering if anyone has had a similar experience and can offer some advice on how to pull through? I feel like he has been scarred by his PhD experience.

From what the OP says about her brother, it strikes me that he’s always been “top” and the PhD was the point at which he met his peers and experienced working where he wasn’t automatically “the best”. If being the best in a competitive way in relation to others(rather than competing against yourself as it were) is what motivates you as an academic then he’s really going to have to develop a thicker skin and some strategies for generating his own excitement and motivation. Once you’re post-doctoral, you don’t necessarily have a supervisor looking out for you - you really have to be independent in many ways. Including realising your own strengths and weaknesses and learning how to make professional self-assessments.

I am not sure if he enjoys the science as much as he used too. At least he doesn't speak to me much about that. What I do remember hearing from him back in the earlier days of his career was how much he loved his research group. So I think a good environment and working conditions are what he enjoys the most .

Academia starts in the PhD though really- that's when research as opposed to learning starts- so if he was enjoying academia until the start of the PhD, he's never enjoyed academia.

If your brother had the choice between being a lecturer in an OK university without ever getting to be professor or a successful city career, which do you think he would choose ?

That's a really good point. Never looked at it that way. I think he enjoys learning more so than research. I will ask him.

He said he would be happy with any permanent position, but ideally would like more. Tough, but I'd guess he would take the city career.

It sounds as though he is clever enough to be ambitious generally but has n’t worked out whether he enjoys independent research enough to want to try to pursue a research career. He has another project and environment to test this but whatever the end decision he can also work on other aspects that will be useful for his ambitions whatever career he eventually tries for.

he loved his research group. So I think a good environment
Ok so he recognises the importance of building the right team environnement and hopefully should have an opportunity to further observe and develop the right interpersonal skills for this and leadership during this post doc.
Guessing where he did his PhD, if students chose not to come to his tutorials it is because they did not find them useful. Sometimes that is because the tutor is not particularly helpful or good at explaining or even appears a bit too arrogant at how clever they think they are compared to the students they are teaching. A bit of self insight into this will help his communication skills. He can practise what he is deficient in.
Talking to others/ networking as much as possible for reasons mentioned above. Even if he finds he is not particularly enthused or making headway in his new project, he may discover from others’ work a field that could engage him more or be useful to know a bit more about for other careers.
Also more flexibility in how he approaches challenges and opportunities.

So overall a lot to be gained for his future whatever.

We sometimes have stellar students who fail to thrive/ enjoy themselves at PhD despite having the smarts because they don't like the unpredictable/chaotic nature of research. They need to know where they're going- the whole point of research is you don't know where you're going- they get frustrated spending most of their time trying ideas that don't work out and stressed by the fact that any major piece of work involved a bit of luck somewhere along the line.

Basically, they need a bit more control of their working lives than research allows.

Do you think this might be the case?

Thanks all, this is such great advice and insight. My DB says thank you to all.

There were so many things that made him dislike his PhD experience, top 3 would be:
Absent supervisor
Political research group
Not empowered to make decisions despite absent supervisor

I guess similar issues to what you may face in induustry

@purifymymind that was very similar to how I felt during the PhD process!

And did it get better when you reached postdoc?

@purifymymind for me, no. I've actually just left (escaped) the sector. For me HE has changed massively since I got my PhD so I got out, eventually. Not everyone feels as I do of course!

Your DB should not forget that his PhD years have not been wasted, he got his PhD, even if he did so without the high impact papers that he might have wanted.

His postdoc won’t be wasted as it is a fresh go for research and for all the other development possibilities I have listed above.
Nobody however can provide the reassurances of certainty that this post doc will be a better environment/ project/ or that he will definitely like and be good enough at independent research.

@purifymymind - sorry to reply so slowly - last week was students' arrival and I was swamped!

After my PhD, I took an academic postdoc. I enjoyed "being someone's postdoc" for about 3 years, after which I really wanted to explore my own research ideas. I searched for jobs (still put in for some non-academic positions, but they were all research centres/gov't, no industry this time around - as I realised industry is very much like being someone's postdoc, as you are always researching what the company wants) and got an academic position with a really good transition package to teaching (basically nothing at the start, moving slowly onto more). My research has been okay - invited to a few keynotes in small fields, etc., but definitely not a "star". I've found actually I really like teaching and curriculum, and have gotten into a lot of curriculum design and teaching admin. Also admin work with funding agencies, on the research side. This is something I had no clue about at all on leaving my PhD, and even if asked when leaving my postdoc would have said I had no interest in! So interests can definitely change and develop. At this point my "unattainable career ambitions" are more like being a PVC (pretty sure I never want to be a VC!) of a Uni or CEO of a Research Council, rather than being super-duper-famous researcher (e.g., someone who changes how the field works, rather than doing stuff in the field).

Thanks all, really interesting.

I spoke to DB on the weekend and so far he seems ok. Said there is a lot of work to do within the research group so he is getting stuck in. He likes the immediate team and the PI, so all good so far. He is not super keen on the city he is in ( small, not much going on,), but not sure how much that will affect his wellbeing.

@sendsummer, he genuinely believes that if he doesn't continue in academia, his PhD is wasted. He doesn't feel he learnt much during that time and keeps refering to the opportunity cost...

@murmuration, I think DB is set on research and the prof route unfortunately....which prob makes everything a little harder...

I hope I'm misreading you ... did you mean to imply that @murmuration is taking the soft option and it's harder to aim to be a prof than a pro VC?

I think (and have thought throughout this thread) that you're tending to bolster your brother's sense of self-importance. Ok, I get it, he likes the idea of a professorship, and there's nothing wrong with having aspirations. But ... come on, have a bit of perspective. It's his career. The numbers of postdocs who make it to prof are tiny (I am a postdoc; I am open-eyed about my own chances too).

PP: I don't think OP really understands how academia works. For example, that one doesn't get to be a pro VC without first getting a permanent job in academia - and most pro VCs/CEOs of research councils do become professors en route to these positions. I'm also not sure whether the word "prof" is being used as a synonym for permanent academic position/research group leader/PI of group or whether the OP actually means professor.

I would find it a bit unusual for a postdoc to aspire to be a professor, rather than to get a permanent academic position, and build their career from there.

But it's been explained? Ok, not in absolutely basic detail, but still?

In case it's unclear, OP:

A postdoc is the most junior rung of academia, after a PhD. It is usual to spend several years as a postdoc before securing a permanent contract; during this period, many people leave academia.

Of the fairly small number who go on from the postdoc stage to a permanent contract, most will start as lecturers.

Some of those people will then drop out, or remain at that level. Others will be promoted to senior lecturers, then to readers (or the equivalent term - different universities use different titles). It's only a very tiny number of people who do postdocs who are promoted all the way to a professorship.

@sarahandquack, no I meant harder because he is set on a specific route and therefore no room for flexibility...which makes anything harder...

I don't think that's a meaningful distinction TBH. It's not like his choices are 'hmm, shall I be pro-vice-chancellor or prof, ooh, decisions decisions ...'.

You need to let him cope with his own failures (or successes).

I think it is a concern that he would see his PhD as wasted if he didn't continue on in academia in the way he hopes. You have to be able to find your own value in what you do beyond it helping you to achieve some far off prestigious career goal.

The nature of the academic career structure means that you have to have something that keeps you going on a day to day basis beyond the promise of promotion, because most years you are just where you are, inching forward a bit if you are lucky. It's not wrong to have an aspirational career goal, or to work towards that, but academia demands a lot from you, as your brother has already learnt, it involves making sacrifices, and those sacrifices have to feel worthwhile now, not maybe possibly in ten or twenty years' time.

OP ask your DB how excited he gets listening to the work of world class physics researchers in talks he should have been accessing at these world renowned universities. If he is not getting those ‘wow’ moments from certain of those talks and ideas for the tools and hypotheses that he might himself be able to try out and develop then IMO he should quit research even if he has a chance to make the status he desires. The inevitable periodic frustrations of research including political and administrative hindrances (that usually become accentuated at senior level) have to be outweighed by the driver of interest rather than status. That is even more so if he feels that selecting the transitional nature of academia may be compromising a long term relationship and starting a family.

If he leaves academia, a PhD is no more wasted time than an undergraduate degree apart from relative loss of income during the time. He should have become more proficient in problem solving, writing, computational analysis and heard about some science or analytical tools that may have commercial applications in the future. He will also have made a network of interesting international friends.
Having a PhD in a STEM subject opens up some career possibilities including in financial and consulting companies even if the research is not directly relevant.

His situation is not particularly unusual in academia, there are a lot of shockingly bad supervisors out there. Hopefully his post doc will prove to be a better experience, but if not then he needs to know that it is ok to leave academia and he can have a very fulfilling (and better paid, more stable, more enjoyable!) career outside of academia. Get him to start thinking about his plan b now. I think everyone (apart from the very senior) needs a plan b in academia as it is essentially a giant pyramid scheme with lots of PhD/post doc positions and very few independent, permanent positions. It’s a terrible system tbh.

From my PhD cohort, the brightest and best did one post doc and then went into industry. The rest, including myself, were forced out after having kids. From the original group of 10, only 3 are still in academia*. We all had successful phds with associated high impact papers. Honestly, tell him life is better on the other side

*and have had a bloody awful time along the way- nightmare bosses, regular 16 hour days (including when pregnant), forced shortened maternity leave, no prospect for promotion etc.

I can totally empathise with your brother. I had a miserable experience with my PhD to start with - awful supervisor, huge amount of politics in the group and then I got pregnant which was the nail in the coffin.

My supervisor sounded similar - wasn't there very often but was very against me doing my own thing /exploring my own ideas, which I understand to a point, but a PhD should be an opportunity for you to develop your own research and not just be his/her lab technician.

I loved the science but became very disengaged as every time I read papers and suggested things he would dismiss them. There was also a real sense of degrading those PhDs who left science either immediately after their PhD or after their first post-doc, despite as others have said, the pipeline means that very few do actually continue in academia, and exploring other options is totally legitimate and should NOT be seen as failure.

I changed supervisor half way through (was the fourth person in 4yrs to do this so I had the reassurance that it wasn't just me) and it completely revolutionised my experience. Working with a different supervisor and in a new group gave me renewed love of the subject.

Your brother has done incredibly well to finish his PhD in this kind of environment. He won't realise it as everyone within his workplace will be conditioned to think otherwise.

I share the concerns of others that a young, ambitious PI in a highly prestigious institute will carry risks of similar pressures but it isn't necessarily the case, and it sounds like he has good vibes early on.

I don't agree with the concept that it you love the subject you will put up with whatever. There is no point breaking yourself or martyring yourself to the cause. But I also don't agree that a PhD is wasted if you continue in another career. There are so many transferable skills, he just won't realise it.

I really hope this post-doc is a positive experience after what sounds like a really rough few years. I so hope that your brother gets to continue in science as it sounds like he would be an asset to academia.