How do you know when it's time to drop out of grad school?

In My Humble Opinion
1

As some of you may know, I’m in the second year of a biological sciences doctoral program.

I still find my project interesting and engaging, but I suck as a graduate student. I work a lot, but there’s something wrong with me. I’m slow, I’m stupid, and I screw things up an awful lot. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that I’m the runt of the lab litter.

There’s only so much shame and humiliation I can take. If I just don’t have it in me to do well, I’d rather cut my losses and do something else. I don’t want to give up prematurely, though; if I’m likely to get better with time and practice, then it’s worth it to me to keep going.

I’m trying to decide if I should stay or go. All of you academic dopers–what would you recommend?

Stuff that I can do at least competently enough (about 2% of what’s actually required):

[ol]
[li]Reading and understanding theory- or math-heavy papers.[/li][li]Noticing interesting things in papers that lead to good questions.[/li][li]Coming up with good feedback on manuscripts, thesis proposals, etc.[/li][/ol]

I’ve been told that these things are rare and valuable. I have yet to see any actual practical advantage in them, though.

Stuff that I’m remarkably bad at (about 98% of what’s actually required):

[ol]
[li]Lab work–getting it done efficiently and well. I seem to need five times longer than anyone else to get anything done. My mind wanders. I drop things. I get sidetracked and then screw up something important.[/li][li]Programming. Actually, I’m not so terrible at the coding itself. But there’s always some sort of practical thing–getting data to load, for example–that I screw up, making my attempts at programming completely useless.[/li][li]Learning any kind of practical lab- or computer-based skill. Other people learn after being shown once. I always need to be shown something a zillion times over. I’m incredibly childish–unless something strikes me as interesting, I can’t focus on it or remember it worth a damn. I learn much better when I can play with something until it works, but that takes time and money that we don’t have. [/li][li]Grant writing. I didn’t get a single grant this year. Not one. Just about everyone else got at least one small grant. Luckily for me, I’m covered on my advisor’s NSF funding, but that’s really not the point. Some people seem to have a knack for grant writing, but I sure don’t. [/li][/ol]

As you might imagine, my advisor’s frustration with me is enormous. My incompetence is also making him very nervous, since I’m on his grant, and he’s relying on my work to help him get tenure.

When I started, my goal was to be successful in doing good science. Now my goal is not to fail too badly. I have yet to meet anyone’s expectations in anything besides classwork.

So, what do you say–do I keep going, or do I quit now, before I fail in some spectacular way?

2

All I can offer is life experience. Sometimes our deficiencies that we think are so glaring to others are hardly on their radar as they deal with their own problems. Maybe you’re being too hard on yourself.

3

With regard to the 98% of things you’re not stellar at, are there things you could be doing that you’re not, to make up for those areas? Do you have a busy life outside your grad school?

As a drop-out myself, I’d say to review everything, see where and if you can improve, and then talk to you supervisor as to whether it is worth continuing. The worst thing, imho and ime, would be to linger on for a few more years and be in the same position but having wasted more of your own and your colleagues’ time. There’s no shame in quitting, if you’ve exhausted all other avenues. Such programmes don’t suit everybody.

4

OP, have you had yourself checked for ADD? Because for this armchair psychologist, you sound a lot like the ADHD or ADD people I’ve known and worked with. Several of them had PhDs; one of them collects PhDs, albeit in the kind of fields where getting one is basically self-directed work… (no, seriously, as of last check he had “BAs” in Law, Philosophy and Journalism and 6 PhDs)

You’re working in a team. That means you can work with other people, reviewing each other work; you can focus on the parts you do well, while your partner focuses on others you’re not as good with and he is. Most of the time I was in grad school (Computer Chemistry: “using Computers to predict experimental results, then performing the experiments”) I was working with other people, relying on each other, dividing work… I was my team’s editor, documenter and general QC person, but I never did any programming and some of the experiments to check my predictions were performed not just by other people: by other teams.

5

Have you had a frank discussion with your PI or someone on your committee you trust? Maybe this year’s grant results were a fluke (for example, I was the only grad student who got an independent grant my second year- it was highly unusual for grad students to get those and I got lucky)?

Your advisor might tell you that you are hardly the worst she’s seen, or give you specific strategies to help you, or see a spark that makes up for you being a late bloomer. Find someone you trust and ask for an honest assessment.

6

I second what Nava said. When I read “…unless something strikes me as interesting, I can’t focus on it or remember it worth a damn,” I thought to myself “sounds like ADD to me.” There are really effective medications for ADD/ADHD and similar conditions, so it would definitely be worth your while to get an appointment with a professional who can properly diagnose you.

The things you’re good at - reading and comprehending the literature, and synthesizing that information into knowledge that lets you ask meaningful questions - is indeed a rare trait, one that really can’t be taught. You either have it naturally, or have to cultivate it over many years. If you can survive grad school it will serve you well in your science career. Not being a stellar lab rat isn’t necessarily the end of the world for a researcher; that’s what grad students, research assistants, and interns are for! :slight_smile:

7

Many of your “can’t do’s” sound like ADD to me. Of course, I know almost nothing about it, so take that for what it’s worth.

StG

8

Psychologist (although not your psychologist) checking in to say it sounds like ADHD, inattentive type to me, too. Get yourself to the university counseling center and talk to someone there. If needed, they can either do the testing or refer you for testing.

9

Since you’ve already gotten useful and relevant input from others, I’m going to ask if you’re by any chance Michael Bolton from Office Space.

10

It sounds like self-esteem is a big problem. Maybe ADD/ADHD, but IANAD.

My questions:
[ol]
[li]Is this a doctoral-only or can you get a masters along the way? If you can, that might be the point where you consider what’s next.[/li][li]Do you have any debt? It might be worth considering whether it is large enough that you might just finish ASAP, or if it’s better to cut your losses and take the debt.[/li][li]How is your advisor besides what you say? Sympathetic in general to others, or is the frustration part of his personality? Assistant professors are under a lot of stress to make tenure, so it could be taken out on you. Also how big is the lab?[/li][/ol]

I think that’s pretty much the goal of life for most of us. Don’t need to be first place, just don’t want to be last place.

11

Moved from MPSIMS to IMHO, our forum for advice (academic, psychological, etc.).

12

Who wrote your protocols? I find that people are easily distracted and inefficient if the protocol is not tailored to their way of working/thinking. Re-write the protocol with checklists if you tend to lose your place or just re-write the protocol in a matter that makes sense to you. I always tell new people in the lab that once I give you my protocol, you need to take it and make it your protocol. You may need to be reminded that you need to turn the plate reader on 15 minutes before you use it for the bulb to warm up. Some people need those reminders in the protocol, others don’t. Write your protocol up before you start and have it ready to go in advance. It helps me “prepare” for the experiment if I have already gone over it in my mind previous to actually doing it. If you need help focusing while doing experiments, when you are performing each step act as if you have to teach it to someone.

You don’t necessarily have to have great bench skills to be successful PI, but you do need them to get through grad school.

When someone is showing you a protocol, equipment use or practical skill, take notes. Nothing bothers me more than someone who has to be shown 10X how to operate a piece of equipment or repeatedly asks the same question about how to run a protocol. It takes my valuable time away from what I need to be working on.

You can take courses in grant writing, critical thinking skills (which you have) aren’t easily taught.

Make an appointment with your PI, advisor or a senior lab person (post-doc or lab manager) and let them know what your concerns are. I have met a lot of grad students in my years in the lab, only 2 ever left during the course of study. One was just not ready for the commitment, the other decided she wanted to be a veterinarian and went to vet school.

13

I can only describe my own experience and that of my daughter.

When I started college I loved chemistry. I had a job in a biochem lab and discovered that I really was lousy at lab work. I found it boring besides. Then one of the grad students in that lab decided to take a course in modern algebra. (Why? What possible use could it have had?) He was having a problem and was discussing it with a friend who also worked in the lab who was actually a grad student in physics and knew modern algebra. I came in on the discussion, learned that modern algebra existed and discovered that I loved it (unlike calculus which I thought was boring, although I have come to appreciate how profound it really is when you get into it deeply enough). To make a long story short, I became a mathematician, specialty modern algebra.

My daughter did a double major, english and biology, in college. She did well, got into grad school in biochem and, like me, discovered that she was not cut out for lab work. So she quit after her master’s, got into scientific publishing and has had a happy and successful career in that for the last 23 years.

14

Every master’s candidate I’ve known has thought they were one of the worst grad students in the world and had an advisor who was mean and told them they were terrible at science. They have all, without exception, gotten their degrees. I’m sure there’s a lot of sample bias going on here, but you are very far from the first person to be in the position you’re in. You’re not *ever *going to have an advisor who kisses your ass. I think ball-busting is in their job description. If your ass was worth kissing, you wouldn’t need advising in the first place.

15

If you don’t have a Master’s, wait it out till you pass your comps. At least where I went to school, passing your comps granted you a Master’s degree.

You may have an accurate assessment of your problems, but I do know that when you’re under pressure and you have low self-esteem, everything you do wrong becomes magnified in your head. Your strengths ARE worthwhile. Being an “idea” person is leagues more important than being a bean counter. I would seriously sit down and figure out those things what you can improve before jumping out of graduate school.