u/Cultural_Mousse_3001

Academia is more competitive than it appears from the outside, particularly at top institutions. It’s toxic. Over the years, I’ve seen advisors take credit for their mentees’ ideas, colleagues grow resentful of peers who outperform them, and researchers present preliminary work at conferences only to find others had rushed to publish nearly identical studies shortly after.

The incentive structures don’t always bring out the best in people. I’ve witnessed colleagues apply for grants that only accept one application per institution — not because their work was a strong fit, but specifically to block a peer from applying. These things happen more than anyone likes to admit.

My advice is simple: share results, not plans. Once something is done, it’s yours. A work-in-progress is vulnerable. Keep your cards close and circle small. You don’t owe anyone a preview of what you’re building.

*Updated: It’s always the people who say, “Yeah, as scientists in the same field, we should promote collaboration” that steal others’ ideas.

Last year, I accepted a PhD student who was a dentist in her country (foreign student). She completed her master’s in the US and seemed to have a high GPA.

I thought she would be a good researcher given her diverse and strong background. However, she is truly incompetent. She doesn’t cite correctly and refuses to take classes to improve her skills because she is scared of her GPA being affected.

I also have another PhD student who has a less impressive background but is making significantly better progress.

The impressive resume PhD student wouldn’t take accountability when she doesn’t complete her assigned tasks and would say she didn’t know, acting confused all the times.

I have mentored only one student before my current two students, so I have little experience with choosing students who are good to work with.

I’m considering removing her from my lab. Have you accepted a PhD student who isn’t competent?