Changing Priorities, Conflict With Professor

<p>

I was a biochemistry phd student at a large state university. I started the program in September of 2005.

</p>

<p>

In June of 2008, I took my general exam and passed it (barely). The professors on my committee were concerned that my project (as it stood) was unlikely to be successful, but made suggestions on new and related projects that they thought would be able to be completed. Based on this meeting, I revised the scope of my project, and my committee thought it was good. By August I was starting to feel happy about how the new (slightly related) project was going. I felt like I had a 2-3 figures worth of data that could be part of a scientific journal article. Granted, this project was not groundbreaking (it was only a small advance and I'm sure my professor was more excited in other projects, like the first project she gave me)

</p>

<p>

In September of the same year, I went to my advisor (professor's) office to ask her a technical question. In the middle of the conversation, she said "I was going to tell you next week, but I should just tell you now to give you warning. I am going to stop funding you as a graduate student unless you have promising results by next week. I know you put in the effort. However, you haven't published any papers yet, and other grad students who have been in the group for less time than you have published... I know the first project I gave you to do was harder than other projects in the lab, but I threw a bunch of other projects at you and you haven't published anything yet on those either. I don't see hope of anything you are working on now being published... You should be an expert in your field now, and you aren't... Also, I wonder if there is a problem like that you have not been taking your (psychiatric) medication recently or something."

</p>

<p>

Hearing this, I was stunned and sad. Part of my shock was the knowledge that I was unhappy with how my research was going before my general exam, but I was happier with how my research was going since. Now my professor was telling me I had no time left at a time when I thought that maybe things would work!

</p>

<p>

I ultimately had three options: (1) keep plugging away toward a phd in the same lab, (2) obtain a masters (instead of phd) in 3 months, or (3) switch labs. I ruled out the first option (getting a phd in her lab) early, because of my anger and distrust with her. I was struggling between option 2 and option 3, and eventually (after lots of struggle) chose to stop at a masters. My reasoning was that I did not feel I have enough passion for research itself (even if I love science - talking about it, thinking about it) but the research process I don't think is what I like. I decided to switch to being a high school science teacher.

</p>

<p>

When I told my advisor that I wanted to stop at a masters, she suprised me by saying "you have to publish a paper in order to get the masters". I was dismayed. Then, I set up a committee meeting to set the expectations, and my committee was okay with my advisor's requirement. So, within a month, I got enough results to write a paper. (remember that I had already had enough results for 2-3 figures worth by August). Granted, I was not completely satisfied with the protocol I used, and if I had had more time, I would have tried to fine-tune the protocol to make my results more solid. Then, I wrote up the results (imperfections and all) as a scientific paper. My committee and advisor accepted what I had written, and I got the masters in December of 2008. My advisor is in the process of submitting the paper to a scientific journal.

</p>

<p>

Anyway, that's my story. I still have feelings of failure, distrust, anger, and worries that I wasted 3.5 years of my life. Now that it's April of 2009, I am starting to gain perspective on the situation. Also, I've tried to glean lessons from it. For instance, the importance of acting quickly when a relationship between a boss and an employee is going downhill. Or, learning to ask what is expected of me on a consistent basis, so that I won't be shocked when a boss gives me a negative evaluation. Or, knowledge that, even if my boss treated me badly, I also could have acted in ways that would have improved the situation. For instance, I was often internally angry at my boss because "she gave me the hard project and everyone else has easier projects" but didn't do anything constructively until it was too late. Also, I sometimes openly disagreed with my boss about scientific protocols, even if others in the lab learned not to rock the boat because she doesn't like people to disagree with her. It also gave me a reality check - grad school is a business (it's a cliche but true!) and even though I was a student, I could be "fired" from a lab if the professor was not happy with me. If i had realized this earlier, I would have persuaded my advisor to give me a more manageable project at the start. The two other students who had worked on the same project as my first project had had tough experiences. One quit from the lab with a masters, joined another lab and is doing well there. The other did not publish until his 5th year as a graduate student and has been the brunt of bad treatment from the advisor.

</p>