You've either heard the stories, or worse, you've lived them.
They're stories of the research advisors who scream at their students in front of the whole department.
The PIs who put two or three postdocs on the same project, expecting only one to succeed.
The 'mentor' who makes you feel like you're not even qualified to wash the glassware.
So why do academic institutions allow such bad behavior to continue year in, and year out?  Why aren't bad PIs accountable?
The fact is, they ARE accountable for things like getting grants, publishing papers, and participating in scientific discourse.  But it seems no one is measuring mentorship and that leaves students and postdocs with nowhere to turn when things go wrong.
Nurture vs. Torture
In this episode, we explore the broken system of academic mentorship, and how it can turn the wide-eyed excitement of a first-year grad student into depression, anxiety, and a vow never to work at the bench again.
We'll tell you how to identify, and avoid, toxic research advisors before you commit to 5+ years.  We also discuss alternatives if you should find yourself locked into a bad PI relationship.
And if none of that works, at least we can have some fun finding HOT research advisors on RateMyProfessor.com!
 
Turn on, tune in, drop out
Though you are unlikely to hallucinate, this week's Citradelic IPA from New Belgium will certainly expand your senses.  With a solid hoppy bitterness and a hint of citrus, it's like a tangerine wrapped in a hop wrapped in an enigma.  Groovy.
 
The post 038: Why aren’t bad research advisors held accountable? appeared first on Hello PhD.