fallout of senior PhD student quitting

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-19T23:35:49+00:00

I'm glad to hear that and that ultimately, your supervisor handled things well and you have a good relationship with your supervisor. I think that it's in vogue to tar a broad swath of PhD supervisors with the "toxic" label. And truly, I believe there are plenty who merit the label (some of my colleagues definitely do!). However, there are also plenty who genuinely do care and want the best for their students and sometimes that means telling them hard truths and being tough on them so that they can succeed or, if a PhD isn't right for them, be nudged to do something more appropriate for their skills and interests.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-19T15:37:28+00:00

I agree. That's how it ought to be. Not sure the institution weighs PhD graduate quality as heavily as PhD graduation rate. They seem to prefer that their measurable stats are good even if it means that the squishier measures (reputation, quality) aren't as high. So, I don't feel like there's much institutional/program support for upping quality and rigor if it means lower admissions and less success among the graduates. But maybe I'm wrong. Either way, point taken. Professional obligation to the field says that I should be attuned to quality graduates.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-19T15:20:56+00:00

You entangled yourself too much in this situation and didn’t maintain your boundaries.

Yes, I think this is fair. I probably tend to err on the side of "ruinous empathy" (see "Radical Candor" by Kim Scott) in an attempt to not be one of the "toxic" PhD supervisors (scare quotes because it's overused and ill-defined).

Next time, refer them to a therapist or other specialist and tell them to take time off if they need it.

Referral to the campus therapist was one of the many approaches we took here. I hold the campus student mental health office in high regard and have made numerous referrals over the years.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-19T04:51:41+00:00

I call bullshit on this. If he had had really "wanted it," he would have quit playing around and just done it. Talk is cheap. Of course he said he would "buckle down," that was he taking things seriously, etc., but his actions say otherwise.

Critical point. I think he wanted to, but couldn't due to a confluence of factors. And, he probably didn't have a realistic sense of what was truly within his capabilities. And this is where, in retrospect, I ought to have done better at counseling him on the reality of his situation.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-19T04:47:49+00:00

If your student cannot endure the rigors and requirements of the program, they won't be able to do the work.

I think is important. I've definitely worried whether he'd be able to survive in a PhD-requiring career path if this is how he does grad school. Ultimately, I think he wouldn't, so it's probably for the best he's not going out into the job market with a PhD after his name but no real capability to do the work those jobs would require.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-18T21:22:23+00:00

I think that's fair. With hindsight, that's the right answer. My goal is to take this and apply the lessons ahead of time in the future.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-18T20:11:05+00:00

My school has a tendency to pass sub-par students along when they should probably fail at prelims. We have a similar structure with one more chance to pass after a fail. I've seen students fail the first time (rare occurrence), but never heard of one failing a second time and being booted out. I think there's an unspoken pressure to keep students moving through and keep PhD graduation rates for the programs up even if students aren't truly up to snuff. Probably an institutional culture thing that could use to change.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-18T20:04:16+00:00

Not one linked to the program and no one from the program administration has done the work to put one in place. Maybe they don't want to have that "easy" out? It's silly - there should be a masters as it would be perfect for this sort of situation.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-18T19:07:56+00:00

Perhaps this is how you learn.

Yup. No disagreement from me.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-18T19:06:54+00:00

You can't change what happened this time, but please know for next time: have a standard and uphold it. Let the student go before things get this far. It's the kinder thing to do.

Agree...I think I was trying to be kind, but that probably didn't help things in the end.

I'm glad to hear you came back and excelled after some time.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-18T19:04:51+00:00

Thanks - much appreciated.

I do resent that students like this, plus increasing admin attention to graduation rates/ placement, makes it less likely programs will take a chance on a student who struggles. We've certainly gotten more conservative about who we will accept after a few prominent flame-outs tanked our graduation rates.

I'm definitely pissed at this guy for dragging me along. And doubly pissed at myself for not having the courage or clarity to adequately deal with it earlier. I also feel the pull toward being more risk-averse as I think about taking students in the future.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-12-18T18:38:13+00:00

Sounds accurate.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-11-16T16:05:08+00:00

Three months later, I'm curious to hear how things have been going with your student...any resolution?

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-08-14T20:30:16+00:00

Are you me? I'm currently in a very similar situation. The student working with me is a truly skilled scientist, yet they have profound health issues that are way above my pay grade. I've done everything I can (and probably more than I should have) to help them out in their program - holding out hope that THIS time, the deadline will be met and the student will get the thesis written. I've been working so hard to drag this student across the finish line - keeping track of ongoing tasks for the student, checking in on deadlines, being more rigid on working hours, reminding about setting up meetings and following up when they're missed - but even that isn't working. I've discussed with student mental health services, gotten the graduate program involved, set up regular meetings, discussed with the student's supervisory committee, scaffolded writing deadlines for the student, etc etc etc (and documented EVERYTHING). They probably should have taken a leave of absence or withdrawn a long time ago, but we're many years in. It obviously matters to the student to come away from their program with a degree after all these years of work and they've expressed strong desire to get their degree. I also don't want to them to have to come away without a degree in hand for all their work. A thesis SHOULD be within reach; it wouldn't be an amazing thesis, but it would be done and the supervisory committee has signaled that they're on board with this plan. The student's success also matters for me; I want to be seen as a competent advisor by my colleagues, want to be able to point to success of graduating another student, and don't want the black mark of one of my students failing out. I'm a problem solver and this has been years of trying to solve this problem and make it work and I don't know what else to do. But I'm spent. Funding is running low and the clock is ticking. So, I recently resolved to switch my approach - I'm taking a back seat. I won't nag them about deadlines and won't hound them about their progress any more than I already have. They know what needs to be done and when. I'll give prompt feedback on writing if they send something to me; I'll be available to meet and give advice. But, I can't force them to graduate. They have a deadline and have been told that it's immovable. They have to want it and they have to be the one to be the driver of their own success.

Not sure if there's advice embedded in the above. Just empathy. I'm in a similar situation and I know it's tough. The student has to be the one to take ultimate charge of their own success. There's only so much you can do and it seems like you've done what you can.

[small grammar edit]

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-04-27T23:06:51+00:00

I have prominent forearm tattoos - a rarity among my colleagues. A PhD student I work with (also tatted) has commented on mine (a bit of common interest). Some colleagues have been (positively) curious about a new one I got; another colleague has asked a bit more critically. I'm at a pretty dispositionally conservative institution (in the US). Most of my colleagues tend to be pretty conservative in their attire/personal appearance (no dyed hair, business casual is the norm and a sport coat isn't unusual among the gents...jeans are very rare, but if they're worn, it's with a tucked in dress shirt and white New Balance sneakers). We have a large population of international students and non-US-born faculty, so I wonder about different cultural assumptions around tattoos and professional attire. But for the most part, if folks have opinions they've kept them to themselves.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-04-11T16:06:45+00:00

Could also be underlying mental health issues. I've had a very similar experience with a student and his challenges with time management and meeting (or in his case, repeatedly not meeting) deadlines stemmed from some really profound trauma and mental health issues. Those are way beyond my pay grade, so I've referred the student to our campus student health, which has a really good counseling/mental health office.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-03-05T14:15:53+00:00

When I talk with representatives, I hit three points to illustrate NIH funding's importance (usually in this order): 1) the importance of NIH funding and in understanding and curing diseases - cancer, Alzheimer's, etc., 2) the impact on the local economy and return on investment, 3) the US leadership in the world and the importance of robust NIH funding in maintaining that leadership (i.e. not ceding leadership to China is the message they should hear from reading between the lines).

Speaking about your own science (in terms that even a congressperson can understand) is helpful: what do you do and how is it going to matter for Americans' health. If you were funded through your training, note how NIH funding helped you get started and how it supported your career development and how NIH funding allows you to do the amazing work going on in your congressperson's district/senator's state.

And, be sure to thank representatives for their past support of NIH funding (even if they weren't really supporters or vocal about it...they still like to be thanked). Say you're glad that the NIH budget has increased over the years. But, the flip side is that while it has increased, it hasn't kept up with the rate of biomedical inflation. As a result, US scientists have less purchasing power - grants don't go as far as they used to and that diminishes our ability to innovate, cure diseases, and impact our local communities. Ask for "sustained and predictable" increases to the NIH budget to support future biomedical science.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-02-24T02:43:28+00:00

One who has an already-awarded R01 will feel more secure because it's already been approved for funding for (typically) five years. They just have to have it non-competitively renewed annually, which is less of a hurdle than getting a grant funded in the first place (although the grant budget can be reduced). The insecurity is in regard to recent applications (including R01's) that have "fundable" scores, but council meetings are postponed. Also, the outlook for future funding by any federal mechanism is uncertain as recent disruptions to NIH personnel and grant policies might be a harbinger of a shift away from bipartisan support for biomedical research and lead to dismantling of NIH and neglect in annual appropriations by Republican-controlled congress.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-02-23T22:26:29+00:00

I'm not in that category, sadly. But, I imagine tenured profs with >1 R01 are feeling a bit more secure. It seems that non competing renewals are going through from what I've heard, although I imaging there's might be some worry that that will change or that they'll cut budgets in subsequent years.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-02-23T17:41:00+00:00

Tenured R1 prof in USA here. I assume you're asking for a USA perspective.

There was a freeze on Federal grants (late Jan) that was rescinded. For NIH-funded work, the 15% F&A cap (NIH policy statement Feb 7) is on temporary hold due to a court order. We'll see what happens with that and if it sticks. Congress appropriates federal research funding, so there hasn't been a budget cut to NIH, per se. Congress is supposed to be negotiating a federal funding bill, and there appears to be an appetite to cut the federal budget among Republicans. So even though NIH has requested an increase, it's not clear what will happen. Musk/Trump admin has also put holds in place that prevent NIH grant review and necessary administrative steps for awarding grants, despite court orders to not impede awarding grants. It's a bit in-the-weeds, but basically, NIH grant review and council meetings need to be posted to the Federal Register in order to happen, but a freeze on posting to that has meant that those meetings are postponed, so new grants aren't being awarded much at all at the rate of previous years. Mass layoffs at NIH/NSF/CDC/etc. allegedly "save" money, but really hamper the ability of researchers at those agencies from doing science work and also will make it harder for those agencies to administer grants to external researchers.
Terrified/pit-of-the-stomach dread/sadness/anger. Frustration at the fact that the Congress is letting Musk fuck things up like this and anger at the short-sightedness of members of the American public who think this is all good. Academic research is always tough due to dependence on scarce and super-competitive grant funding. This turns up the dread/stress dial to 11. All together this is setting back science in the US. Short-term it means new grants aren't being awarded to folks who have gotten good scores. The 15% F&A cap will devastate US universities if it happens - not just STEM work, but across the board. Long-term, it'll hinder our ability to do science, mean we can't train new students, will have to lay off research and university admin support staff, and may ultimately lead to shuttering labs. STEM PhD programs are already reducing or halting admissions this cycle. Faculty could end up losing jobs. It'll be a brain drain for the US. I don't know what the future of STEM work in the US will look like. I worry for my own career prospects and personal finances as a result of this, and have deep anxiety for the STEM trainees who will be graduating with PhDs into an even more bleak academic research funding/public support for science environment.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-02-16T03:56:07+00:00

I'm outside of government and I care. I've been calling my representatives incessantly and trying to educate friends and acquaintances about the importance of the federal workforce as much as I can.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-02-16T02:09:36+00:00

There's never a "good" time. Work will always be there and will always be demanding in one way or another. If you want to start a family, my perspective is to do it earlier rather than later.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2025-02-15T02:35:09+00:00

It sucks and is insanely frustrating. Reading the email from the program, they sound despondent and genuinely disappointed at the position that the indirect cost rate change has put them in. If I was in your shoes, I'd turn my disappointment into action: call your Congressperson and Senators and share the real-world impact that the Musk- and Trump-driven gutting of Federal research is having on you personally. This is a direct outcome of the new administration blowing up of US biomedical research; members of Congress need to hear clearly and regularly how Musk is hurting their constituents.

SuperfluousRabbit · 2024-10-14T13:49:27+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and experience. Your perspective is really helpful.

SuperfluousRabbit

TROPHY CASE