“I’m thinking of leaving academia,” a friend tells me. “I’m pretty sick and tired of all the political games”. This should have been shocking news. He was the type of person that seemed perfectly suited to being an astrophysicist. I never foresaw him doing anything else.

I wasn’t surprised though. In my time as a PhD student, I heard countless episodes of political game-playing by postdocs and academics. For example, my housemate (a PhD student in the biological sciences), would frequently come to me with a new story about how his supervisor would attempt to use any leverage available to make him do work to advance the supervisor’s own career instead of my housemate’s PhD. “We are just pawns on a chess board to them.” he would often say. 

He meant this figuratively. He didn’t realise academics sometimes literally use students as pseudo chess pieces. When I needed to change offices due to a couple of toxic colleagues, I found that the process was a prolonged one. Most of the academics recognised that a desk, occupied or not, was a status symbol. The more desks each academic presided over, the higher their status. It was like some sort of weird conglomerate of empires. Giving up an empty desk space meant losing “territory”. My supervisor, despite thinking this was dumb, had to negotiate a PhD student “swap” with another research group. 

Before I started my PhD, I saw academics as mature, upstanding members of society. It was certainly a shock to the system to discover that, on occasion, some academics acted like toddlers in a sandpit squabbling over who has the better sandcastle. In these power struggles, PhD students are the spades – tools to be used by academics which can be disposed of at any moment, once they have served their purpose.

Read More »