Publishing Frustration

[Vader]

---

Members do not see this ad.

My PI I think feels very strongly that his students should have minimal protection from these things to get the real experience of what science is about. That's his perspective--that he gives out ideas and gets funding and its your job to go do them. So in that sense I think most of the PIs in my department would disagree with Vader and sluox. But then again, is this the right way to train graduate students?

But back to the topic of completeness, I felt done much sooner than my PI and committee thought I was complete.

These are good questions you raise. Being a PI, I imagine, is a lot like being a parent--how much do you let your child/grad student get exposed to versus protect them from, how much do you let them struggle before coming to the rescue, how do you teach them to "make it" on their own? Some PIs are better at this than others. I would say that there is extremely limited training in being a good mentor/PI, just as there is limited or no training in being a parent. Learning to be a mentor is certainly not a requirement of graduate school. Some PIs are just naturally good at this. Others were fortunate to have good mentors as examples. But many just do not have any real training in being a good PI and are somewhat neglectful as a result.

I think the student has to lay out in clear terms what are the specific aims of the project. The student must anticipate results and what type of follow-up will become necessary (the PI should help the student do this). When the specific aims and experiments are agreed upon between the student and PI, these should be presented as early as possible to the committee so that they are on board.

I would also recommend meeting individually with committee members ahead of time to get them on board early. From my experience, the modus operandi of most scientists is quite conservative. Scientists do not like surprises, non-sequiters, or illogical flow of ideas. Proposed or completed experiments must be presented in a logical, cohesive way that answers specific questions. In addition, remember that scientists, like all people (or perhaps more than most) have egos. If you give people a chance to contribute their 2 cents ahead of time, it tends to make them feel better that they have contributed and that you are accepting their ideas. When your plans are pre-vetted, this can make the committee meetings go much more smoothly. And remember, science is a human endeavor!

Hope this is helpful for current MD/PhD students facing some of these issues... 🙂

 

[Neuronix]

I would also recommend meeting individually with committee members ahead of time to get them on board early.

I felt this way too. So I did that. It turns out they didn't agree with each other, and then then they took that out on me. Yes, this actually happened. It seems so farsical it seems like a dream to me now. My PI went ballistic when he heard my committee (actually, pretty much one member) didn't like what I had to tell them, when I did exactly what one of the other committee members told me to do and made most sense to me. I went back to that committee member who gave me the advice after the meeting and he thought I did a great job! Four different reports my committee members handed in and two completely opposite viewpoints. They thought they were in agreement too?!

 

[Vader]

Another thing to consider is that if you think being a graduate student is frustrating, just wait until you become a "3rd year" medical student! 😱

I think from what you have written, neuronix, that some time off is just what the doctor ordered. 😉

 

[Neuronix]

I already had 6 months of third year. During that time my ex-g/f was living with me but officially broken up with me. She got drunk and picked fights with me constantly and brought other guys to the apartment. My father was in the hospital getting his second and third organ transplants. I would go visit him after getting done on Neurology, as he was in the ICU in the next building over.

But even with all that, I'll take third year over grad school ANY DAY.

 

[Vader]

I felt this way too. So I did that. It turns out they didn't agree with each other, and then then they took that out on me. Yes, this actually happened. It seems so farsical it seems like a dream to me now. My PI went ballistic when he heard my committee (actually, pretty much one member) didn't like what I had to tell them, when I did exactly what one of the other committee members told me to do and made most sense to me. I went back to that committee member who gave me the advice after the meeting and he thought I did a great job! Four different reports my committee members handed in and two completely opposite viewpoints. They thought they were in agreement too?!

Yeah, I actually had something similar happen to me. Getting scientists to agree is sometimes like herding cats. However, the committee chair should be the one to take charge and force the members to come to some agreement. The PI's role should be that of someone supportive of the student's progress and to put the data into a broader context for the committee members who may not fully digest the importance or meaning of the results. Some committees certainly work better than others, mostly dependent on personalities. At your program, are you able to remove members of your committee? Obviously, it is better to try to come to some agreement rather than resort to this nuclear option, but sometimes certain personalities are not well suited to be on student committees.

This brings me to my next piece of advice for students out there: be very careful in who you choose to be on your committee. Other students can be a good resource for advice on who is good, who isn't. You want at least one major advocate who will speak up during meetings and force the committee to come to an agreement on your progress.

 

[Vader]

I already had 6 months of third year. During that time my ex-g/f was living with me but officially broken up with me. She got drunk and picked fights with me constantly and brought other guys to the apartment. My father was in the hospital getting his second and third organ transplants. I would go visit him after getting done on Neurology, as he was in the ICU in the next building over.

But even with all that, I'll take third year over grad school ANY DAY.

Sorry to hear that... I had some very difficult things happen during 3rd year which definitely made for challenging times. It is interesting how our environment at the time colors our perspective on other experiences. Aversive conditioning really works... the amygdala is a powerful thing! 🙂

I will say that your perspective will change with time, however. Not to say that research is necessarily for you or that you will enjoy it any more in the future. But at least you have shown great resilience given all you have been through, and you should be proud of your accomplishments.

 

[Jorje286]

Neuronix's story isn't too uncommon from what I've seen. If you go into sciencecareers.com there are similar horror stories from PhD's themselves who are very dissapointed in academia. I guess the moral of those stories is that you have to adore science so you can survive. It shouldn't be treated just as just a "cool job."

 

[Neuronix]

sciencecareers.org I think you mean (Science Magazine's forums).

 

[Jorje286]

sciencecareers.org I think you mean (Science Magazine's forums).

Yes. And actually the administrators had to intervene because there was too much negativity on a site that was supposed to promote research in academia.

I will say "I love academic medicine" at my interviews. I have to do that if I want to get the residency I want. Just another strange part of another strange system.

To be honest, I also felt sometimes that the whole MSTP interview experience as one big farce, from both the applicants' and the institution's sides. I now think it's a lot better if they follow some objective measure and keep all the subjective crap outside, because sometimes it seems it's all about who can make a better act.

 

[Vader]

Yes. And actually the administrators had to intervene because there was too much negativity on a site that was supposed to promote research in academia.

To be honest, I also felt sometimes that the whole MSTP interview experience as one big farce, from both the applicants' and the institution's sides. I now think it's a lot better if they follow some objective measure and keep all the subjective crap outside, because sometimes it seems it's all about who can make a better act.

Yes, it is easy to fall into the abyss of negativity. Everyone is subject to burn out. However, I have found that most medical and graduate students often overemphasize the negative aspects of a situation (we are trained to be critical, right?). Getting through 3rd & 4th year of medical school and especially getting through residency with a reasonably intact psyche requires a certain degree of positivity, or ability to turn what looks like disaster into opportunity. I have seen many examples of individuals in science and medicine who get destroyed by their inability to withstand some of the harsh blows they encounter during their journey. The most successful physician-scientists (or physicians or scientists) that I have met have a remarkable degree of resiliency for overcoming failure. The trick I think is to keep oneself moving, to not get bogged down in trivial things, and to maintain a positive can-do attitude.

Honestly though, if you decide that an academic career is not for you, why go to the trouble of lying to yourself and the faculty you meet for residency interviews? If the particular program wants to churn out academicians and researchers, perhaps this program is not for you and you should look for others that would be a better fit. In any field, there are certainly great programs that focus mainly on clinical training. Prestige is not everything; happiness, as Neuronix found out, counts for a lot.

 

[RxnMan]

...But even with all that, I'll take third year over grad school ANY DAY.

It is statements like this, that makes me even more convinced that I made the right decision when I did not go for a PhD. Neuronix's story, while painful, is all too common. PhD students, especially in this time of poor economy and poorer funding levels, are terribly absued.

...This brings me to my next piece of advice for students out there: be very careful in who you choose to be on your committee. Other students can be a good resource for advice on who is good, who isn't. You want at least one major advocate who will speak up during meetings and force the committee to come to an agreement on your progress.

As a MS student, I didn't understand this bit of advice. It cost me time, hardship, and effort. I had to kick and scream, with no help from my PI, to get out with a degree.

Entering students, as you start to look for labs, you might find a neat project, or a "big name" may tell you he has an opening. But screw that. Don't worry about project, fame, or heck, even field - get a good mentor. One who will be your advocate and help you. Without a good mentor to protect you, you are stuck in a system that does not give you any power and will abuse you.

 

[Gfunk6]

But even with all that, I'll take third year over grad school ANY DAY.

One of my friends and MSTP colleagues once told me, "The worst day in clinic is still better than the best day in lab."

Understandably, he bailed out of research rather quickly.

 

[Neuronix]

One of my friends and MSTP colleagues once told me, "The worst day in clinic is still better than the best day in lab."

I wouldn't go that far 😉 I don't recall if I ever posted the traumatic first time I did a GYN exam 😱

Though I wonder if it ever gets any better. I also wonder how I'll find Rads residency and practice. Only time will tell. I'd keep my opinions open for anything at this point, because I just don't know. I only know that I really, really didn't like my last year of grad school. Will future research be any better? I don't know that either.

 

[Neuronix]

Sigh... I just heard back on my flagship abstract. It took a year of my time and a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get that data. It was, IMO a lot of solid and interesting data. I submitted the data to a not that competitive, but the major conference in my field (that btw, was in Hawaii this year).

It was completely rejected. Not even a poster. Thus, I won't get to go to the conference now.

 

[Neuronix]

Honestly though, if you decide that an academic career is not for you, why go to the trouble of lying to yourself and the faculty you meet for residency interviews? If the particular program wants to churn out academicians and researchers, perhaps this program is not for you and you should look for others that would be a better fit. In any field, there are certainly great programs that focus mainly on clinical training. Prestige is not everything; happiness, as Neuronix found out, counts for a lot.

I thought about this paragraph for awhile and talked to a few people and have a lot of thoughts about it. I'm glad Vader is here because he's a lot like a godfather to many of us senior students. He ran the first MD/PhD student-run website. His site and FAQs were pretty much the only thing we had back then. It's been incorporated into www.mdphds.org now.

I think a good healthy dose of optimism is needed once and awhile, both for me and for the world in general. I never viewed myself as pessimistic, negative, or cynical, just perhaps as critical, realistic, and analytical. But, I recognize that a lot of people see me as the former three adjectives. The MD/PhD forum has become the only forum on this entire site with a disclaimer(*** See bottom of post). Not the blind-leading-the-blind land that is Pre-allo. Not the Isreal v. Palestine-like conflict that's going on over in the Anesthesia forum. Not even the Sociopolitical forum, whose widely stated "Wall of Hate" from users, their own used-based system of moderation, openly troll and bash each other in mean spirits. No my friends. It's us. We're doing something so controversial to the future of medicine that we needed a disclaimer. I'm amazed I got that far and didn't even get kicked off the forum .

So I'm glad Vader is here to balance out my rants, which are probably scaring a whole applicant crop of MD/PhDs. That being said, bad things happen to good people. It could be you. I think we really need to fix both graduate AND medical education, and maybe be being open about the issues that are staring us in the face, rather than looking away, we can actually do that together. We're in a unique position to comment on both and the combination of both. Our experiences are shared ones, not unique and isolated. So to that end, here are today's thoughts.


Issue #1: My own desire to continue doing academics. I have no idea at this point what I'm going to do with my career. I needed to be reassured by a few people that *gasp* that's ok. It doesn't feel like it sometimes. Maybe I've just been telling people I wanted to be a 80/20 and defending that tooth and nail for so long after I had convinced myself of it. I met an MD/PhD who after grad school who said he'd never do research again and now he's doing 100% research and very successful at it.

For me this is hard because I like to plan. I like to know why I'm doing something. I've always liked to think that I would continue doing mostly research and that I enjoyed it (and I did for a good long while) and was fairly successful at it. I'm kind of stubborn, and when I set myself down a path, even if that's a many year path, I tend to go and do it. My hope is always that I'm doing it for the right reasons, and so far I've been rewarded. I went back to college when nobody told me I would or could. I got into an MD/PhD program when everyone told me it was a bad idea and I wasn't competitive enough. I did fairly well in medical school working as little as possible and having a good time. I did fairly well in grad school... and so on…

But when everything went to **** for a lot of reasons, I became miserable. This was in part because it was a ****ed up situation. I'm still quite unhappy about what happened. It worries me quite a bit about the bridges I burned in standing up for myself and doing what was right for myself. Still, that's the price you pay for standing up for yourself and your own dignity.

But this hurt a lot for me because the career I envisioned, what I worked so hard for (and gave up so much for) no longer seemed appealing. The lifestyle I envisioned, having a family who actually loved me and cared for me, no longer seemed attainable. That hurt, and it still hurts, and now I feel somewhat set adrift. The whole process taught me that I'm not sure it's ever worth rushing so headlong into something, sacrificing so much, for something that's as fragile and typically uncontrollable as a career in science, or for that matter a career in medicine. Yet that's what will be expected of me. Work harder than everyone else. Put up with so much extra crap you hate putting up with. MAYBE there will be a reward down the road. Maybe. And yet you're constantly told to find balance… Balance? At 80 hours a week there is no balance. There's only hope that you will enjoy life someday. I'm not sure I have that hope anymore. But I do enjoy life now. But that's only because I'm taking time off and doing the things I enjoy. Of course these are exactly the things that residency faculty look down upon. The idea that you *gasp* might want to take some time off because you're burnt out. The idea that you *gasp* might want to reconsider your career. BAD MEDICAL STUDENT! NO NO NO! NO RESIDENCY FOR YOU!

So given that everything that contributed to my raison d'etre is gone… Why am I here again?

Issue #2: I want a residency in a certain competitive specialty. While I've been assured by several different faculty at a few different departments that my PhD doesn't really mean that much in the match and their department pays "lip service" to research, it does mean something. "Ostensibly we are a research institution, so the department keeps a few researchers around" I've been told, along with "that could be you if you want it enough". I'm in the fortunate position of having a pretty high Step I score, even if my clinical grades are lackluster so far. I look like every other applicant medical student on paper without the PhD, so using what I spent 4 years training in seems like a pretty good idea.

If I apply to community programs with my background, they will either A) not interview me or B) bring me there just to laugh at me (and I've heard a story of this). But, if I go around telling people I don't plan on continuing research (and why would I do this if I'm not sure?), my PhD background will indeed completely evaporate.

Now I pride myself on my openness, honesty, and ethics. It would be easy for me to sell myself as a research resident, get a year of protected research time, and take a nice long vacation. I've seen a few MD/PhDs do this and it gives us a bad name. So the likely result is that I will convince myself again that I love research so that I can convince others. Isn't cognitive dissonance great! But, honestly, the idea of me sounding unsure around a bunch of MDs who have a few months or maybe a year of research, who say they love academics to get into the big name places, but in reality 50% will go on to do fellowship and 90% to do private practice… It sounds kind of dumb to me for me who knows what life is like in big name academics (and finds it to kind of smell like expensive cheese), who knows the real scoop and spent years fighting like hell to get all that funding and publications, to just kind of say "Yeah, I think I'll shoot myself in the foot". I may be crazy, but I'm not dumb. I just hope I look sane enough to do well when it comes match time.




*** If you haven't seen the disclaimer or would like to see it again, go back to the MD/PhD forum main page. Click "Log out" in the top right corner. Then go back to the main page. You should then see it in the "Notices" bar at the top of the screen.

PS: Neuronix has not verified this message for its accuracy, completeness or usefulness.