I am deeply sorry that the sentiment you express has been your experience. That is not the way it is or must be everywhere, and I hope you are treated better in the future.
Even so, I want to say explicitly that the idea that we should allow geniuses to abuse us and harass us because they are geniuses is dangerous and misguided nonsense. Being smart is not an excuse to behave poorly. With rare exception, producing something great for the world, or believing you are working on something great, is not justification for hurting others or not taking into consideration their needs or feelings, especially when they are working for you to try to help you.
I also think that your reduction of 100-hour-minimum work weeks, no free time, emotional manipulation to prevent reporting, and frequent unnecessary cruelty disguised as "advice" or "help" to "unkind comments" is absurd. If people chose this lifestyle, knowing what they were getting into, that's one thing (and even then, it would still be dubious to demand it in the first place) - but clearly the author and their peers were mislead and manipulated into it.
Finally, what is illegal and what is immoral are not the same thing, and we can and should hold people, as a society, to a higher standard than "guess they didn't break the law" when we put them in positions of power over other people.
Edited to add: I had the pleasure of working as an undergrad with several professors and PHD students in a research capacity. Some of these people, I would absolutely consider "geniuses" in terms of both intellect and achievements. I still speak with many of them, and consider some of them good friends. I never, not once, observed or heard of people being treated in the ways described in this article (nor was I myself), despite the relatively prestigious people I worked with and their relatively prestigious work. It is not that way everywhere.
If there was serious abuse I'd 100% agree with you.
One problem we have is the word abuse, based on the modern definition and usage, encompasses a range of activities from things that are only slightly unkind and rather run of the mill to extreme examples of verbal cruelty.
The particular points highlighted in the article don't strike me as being on the cruel side.
My understanding of the world is that the higher you rise, the thicker your skin needs to be.
Of course we shouldn't tolerate gratuitous cruelty.
But anyone who has ever worked with very high level people will know they can be capricious. And for most of us, getting to those high levels is an honor.
Personally in my career I've provided services to successful hard to deal with entrepreneurs. Was it a PITA? Yes. Did I learn a lot? Yes. The most demanding, harsh people are those that test your meddle and forge you in fire. Not the ones that are most pleasant.
The reason elite universities are elite is because they push people to the brink, they are designed to demand as much from a human being as can be demanded. See, my issue with the article has to do with the author wanting to be an elite researcher holding the highest and most elite title (a PHD) in the most elite university in the world (MIT) and not thinking it's going to be a ton of hours a week. IMO, that's how you determine who is elite and committed; by applying stress and seeing who can handle it at the highest level.
I mean, logically the guy who can work 80 hours a week will do more researcher, which will compound, and far outpace the productivity of someone who works 40 hours a week. This seems like a really logical and reasonable basis for how we've set up society and I've yet to meet anyone who is elite in their field who worked only 40 hours a week to get there.
Now, I'll concede: Maybe there was an accusation in that article you consider so gratuitos and bad that it's worth condemning this institution which for better or worse has figured out how to squeeze out human innovation and potential like nothing before in history. I'll also concede I might be jaded and just accepting of things that are changing and should change.
And last, I believe most things should move away from reputation based systems to more meritocratic systems, so if you want to talk about removing the biggest whip that the article mentions (not being able to leave for fear of a bad reference) - I 100% support such efforts.
> Maybe there was an accusation in that article you consider so gratuitos and bad that it's worth condemning this institution which for better or worse has figured out how to squeeze out human innovation and potential like nothing before in history.
1. There is a common fallacy. Just because a system is getting good results (even the best results) doesn't mean that every part of it is well-chosen to contribute to those good results. It's entirely possible that it has bad parts that worsen the results, in spite of which the results manage to be good.
2. Article says: "My advisor was hemorrhaging students, yet no red flags were raised. ... Those who planned to complete their PhD left the group or left MIT."
This sounds like clearly a waste of resources, to have lots of people begin PhD programs and either abandon them or transfer. The phrasing of the paragraph seems to be saying that none of this particular professor's PhD students stayed with him long enough to get their degree—which, if true, means it's not just weeding out the bottom X%, but that it's driving everyone away. And if it's just one professor, that's one thing, but the article says that the administration dismissed all complaints by saying all faculty had their own "methods of advising". Which rings true to an account from a friend of mine:
As a PhD student, he was the "golden boy" of the department, doing very well. After some years, he wanted to get his degree, and said that some of his earlier work should suffice to qualify. His advisor said, no, I insist you keep working on this project, and if you don't, I will not recommend you and will generally prevent you from getting a degree. (I'm hazy on the exact details of what was threatened.) I think it was also impossible to have the other professors in the department recommend him—I think my friend said it was because they weren't willing to oppose the advisor. My friend went to the administration. They said, we believe in academic freedom for our faculty. He said, all right, I believe in suing you. They said, what do you want? He said, I'm not asking for anything outlandish—just bring in a well-regarded professor, a neutral party both sides can agree to, and have him judge. This was arranged, and the professor said, yes, this is worthy of a PhD. My friend got his degree, and left the university system permanently after that.
> My advisor was hemorrhaging students, yet no red flags were raised. ... Those who planned to complete their PhD left the group or left MIT.
This literally tells me nothing.
What's the average completion rate in that field? What's it for other great professors?
"hemorrhaging", like "abuse" is very vague language. I don't like condemning people based on this. It seems like a slippery slope.
Again, if you can point out a particular accusation in that article you feel deserves complete condemnation and the type of upheaval we are seeing, please point it out. I'd like to learn.
Otherwise, I'll continue to see this as a failed Navy Seal complaining about how tough it is to become a Navy Seal without understanding that the difficulty is built into the concept of why it's elite. If it was easy, there'd be no status associated to it.
Even so, I want to say explicitly that the idea that we should allow geniuses to abuse us and harass us because they are geniuses is dangerous and misguided nonsense. Being smart is not an excuse to behave poorly. With rare exception, producing something great for the world, or believing you are working on something great, is not justification for hurting others or not taking into consideration their needs or feelings, especially when they are working for you to try to help you.
I also think that your reduction of 100-hour-minimum work weeks, no free time, emotional manipulation to prevent reporting, and frequent unnecessary cruelty disguised as "advice" or "help" to "unkind comments" is absurd. If people chose this lifestyle, knowing what they were getting into, that's one thing (and even then, it would still be dubious to demand it in the first place) - but clearly the author and their peers were mislead and manipulated into it.
Finally, what is illegal and what is immoral are not the same thing, and we can and should hold people, as a society, to a higher standard than "guess they didn't break the law" when we put them in positions of power over other people.
Edited to add: I had the pleasure of working as an undergrad with several professors and PHD students in a research capacity. Some of these people, I would absolutely consider "geniuses" in terms of both intellect and achievements. I still speak with many of them, and consider some of them good friends. I never, not once, observed or heard of people being treated in the ways described in this article (nor was I myself), despite the relatively prestigious people I worked with and their relatively prestigious work. It is not that way everywhere.