Generating new knowledge is hard. Doing science is not an easy job – one has to pose novel questions, design elegant experiments, analyze data in unique ways, write meaningful papers, compete for grants/awards and not be deterred by failure. It is a great endeavor, which is why one needs do a PhD after some formal education, to learn how to do science. What seems to have happened over the past few decades is that PhD has become more of a performing ground rather than a learning ground. Below are some points highlighting common problems in a PhD –

  • Students are expected to figure out many things on their own. PIs should help their students (either themselves or by putting them in contact with relevant people) to find solutions. PhD is not a test that students need to pass on their own. If taught how to navigate new problems, students will perform better and produce meaningful results, benefiting the lab as well.
  • If PhD students want to stay in academia, they have to produce papers published in high impact factor journals to get competitive postdoctoral fellowships (unfortunate but true). This is not easily achieved and needs the full support of PIs. In these cases, if the PIs are on top of the project, both parties would benefit.
  • If PhD students don’t want to stay in academia, they don’t necessarily need publications in high impact journals but it would still be beneficial for the students and the lab to get the work out. Communication is key in such cases and would avoid unnecessary tension.
  • It is not fair to expect every PhD student to be exceptional. In every industry/profession around the world, there are people who are at the forefront pushing boundaries and then there are people with crucial roles who help in running the machine. Both are equally important. Similarly in academia, there are scientists who disrupt fields and bridge different ones while some scientists do solid, rigorous work in their own fields to move ideas forward in important gradual steps. Good science shouldn’t be correlated with flashy science published in big journals. A well-trained PhD student, based on their personality, should be able to do either and contribute to science.
  • If PIs are not able to provide full support (directly/indirectly) to PhD students, then neither the PhD student performs to their fullest capacity nor the lab benefits from such a member. In such cases, PIs should not take on students to whom proper training/guidance cannot be provided.

If PhD students knew how to do everything, they wouldn’t be PhD students. They would be postdocs or rather PIs. The focus during a PhD should be on training to become a better scientist, to allow students to build their craft and skills uniquely.