The Dark Side of PhD Programs: Are We Overqualified and Exploited?

It is a commonly perceived notion that one can #8220;be too qualified#8221; for a PhD program. Plenty of individuals recognize their value is beyond the typical academic expectations. They realize the academic environment is incompatible with their personal life goals and choose to step away. Yet, the idea that one might be too competent for a PhD program is not something that resonates with academic institutions or faculty members. In fact, it often leads to skepticism and denial—often a result of political and financial motivations.

Academic Environment as a Political Cesspool

The academic world, much like any other institution, can be politically charged. Many PhD programs are designed to retain students who are willing to compromise their personal life and financial stability. Typically, those who survive in an environment with little monetary reward, small stakes, and a high-risk mindset are the ones who are retained. These programs often funnel money into the pockets of a select few, using an array of resources and funding strategies.

For instance, the required courses and so-called skills you might learn are often less about genuine academic development and more about maintaining a system where students are dependent on the institution. Stipends and other monetary incentives are intertwined with the expectation of loyalty and blind compliance, a phenomenon often termed as the #8220;glass house extortion racket.#8221; Too much competence can be a threat to the program’s self-interest, leading to the suppression of the student’s efforts and potential.

Gut-wrenching Experiences: A Tale of Deception and Exploitation

I encountered an unforgettable and terrible situation at Fordham MS in Psych and Wright State PhD in Psych. The faculty members engaged in deceptive and manipulative practices, leading to the loss of tens of thousands of dollars in addition to the time, energy, and opportunities I invested. These included lying about available opportunities, denying resources, and general unethical behavior.

Though I completed a PhD program, my advisors, Kevin Bennett from Wright State and Andrew Rasmussen from Fordham, were a significant part of the problematic narrative. Kevin Bennett once remarked, “There’s a sucker born every minute and if you don’t know who it is, it’s you,” during a group meeting. This statement reflects a deeply cynical view, which resonated more as I became more entrenched in the institution’s manipulations.

Manipulation and Undermining Competence

Several incidents highlighted the manipulation and undermining of competence within the program. Rebecca Riffle, a fellow cohort, advised me not to appear too competent. I was under the impression that I should be perceived as disabled. When I inquired about grade discrepancies, I was advised to #8220;keep my voice down#8221; and asked if I #8220;wanted to get everybody in trouble.#8221;

Further, during a conversation with a coworker, Danyell Lewis, who was friends with some of the students I had TA’d, it was revealed that my former advisor had instructed people to ignore me because I was supposedly disabled. When I shared these concerns with Steve Khazon, the Head of TAs, he warned me not to speak up about my experiences, lest I be perceived as crazy and that no one would believe me.

Exposing the Extortion Racket

My experiences at these institutions were not mere personal grievances; they were a reflection of a larger exploitation and scam. My advisor, Kevin Bennett, frequently misquoted books and movies, expecting the students he claimed to advise to fund his activities. He would often demand more from the students, using their work without acknowledgment and demanding continuous production to keep me from being kicked out.

The school operated a system of scapegoating and manipulation, much like the antagonist Maman in "Slumdog Millionaire," who blinded a boy to make him a blind beggar. Similarly, the school would hinder the success of certain students, forcing them into a cycle of dependence and serving the institution's financial interests.

Conclusion: A Closer Look at Schooling Efficiencies

The experiences at these PhD programs echo a broader problem within the education industry. They are not just a personal story but a systemic critique of inefficient use of resources and unethical management. The key issues highlighted include:

Manipulation and discouragement of students to appear competent Tokenism and exploitation of specific student groups Scam-like practices and self-perpetuating financial systems Derogation and undermining of students' sentiments and efforts

The education industry, particularly PhD programs, can often be a place where students are overqualified and yet systematically exploited. These narratives call for a reevaluation and reform of the current academic structures to ensure a more equitable and ethical environment for all.