I am eager to quit but I feel like I might need to be on good relations with him, otherwise, he won't leave a good word in for me for anyone who contacts him as a reference. I don't have many references because, I'm in graduate school. Let's just say quitting in anyway would not be good for our relationship given his personality.
I could suck it up for three more years (granted I graduate in three, he's not the best at science or getting us funding, he's mostly a politician) and it's too late to switch groups without wasting an additional 3 years. Sticking with it seems like my best option right now, unless I am wrong and I do have other options.
You seem to be at a point that is just about halfway. Can you master out? (you can likely apply to a different program with a masters if you really want the PhD.) You also mention that he is bad at science and funding, but good a politicing. So unless you want to be a raging socialite, it does not seem he has much to offer you.
If you do stick with it -- network heavily! This was my biggest mistake, and seems to have put a real damper on any future prospects. My other mistake was believing that STEM shortage garbage, so make sure that the degree has some actual value. Otherwise you may find yourself teaching yourself programming and looking at job threads on HN.
Good luck!
In short: probably.
You have to make a decision: Quit, or take control of your own education and finish.
You will need your supervisor to deal with the administrative aspects of your degree, so you can't avoid him entirely. However, you can limit your contact with him to that role alone. However, you will need someone to supervise your academic requirements.
So you need to find someone with whom you can talk about your work, and possibly with whom you can collaborate. A supervisor suggests problems to work on, suggests material to read and understand, monitors that you're working hard enough, checks on your progress, and if your progress isn't adequate, suggests modifications to the current schedule/scheme of work.
You will need to do almost all of that yourself, or find someone else to collaborate with to accomplish those academic aspects. But it can be done, and if you succeed it becomes a major, major accomplishment on your CV.
But you really need to take control.
Or quit.
I agree with your advice except for this line. To be clear, a Ph.D does count as a "major, major accomplishment on your CV" (at least to the right audience). But you won't get any extra credit for putting up with a bad adviser.
I am tempted to simply advise quitting, but switching to another adviser (or even sticking it out) could also make sense. It depends on how exactly your adviser is bad, and whether you could honestly expect another Ph.D. adviser to be significantly better. Actual abuse is one thing, but benign neglect and a "sink or swim" attitude are pretty typical attitudes. If the problem is that your adviser is just focused on raising funds and doesn't have much time or inclination to help you on your research, then you can't expect any better if you roll the dice another time.
Also - what field are you in? What are your career goals? Most people with Ph.Ds don't end up in jobs that require them. If you think you'll be dropping out of academia in three years anyways (and there's no shame in that), then there really is little reason to stick it out for three more years of suffering, regardless of the whys.
Loading comment...
You don't need the bad advisor, move on. References are completely over-rated. Still, companies ask for references as some sort of social proof. Curate an alternate list of 3-5 individuals, (old supervisors, employers, senior colleagues, club officers, etc...) these are people who can vouch for you and the quality of your work.
If some one asks specifically for your advisor contact, be candid-- 'we didn't have much of a relationship and don't think he is best placed to comment on my abilities'.
This article has more details:
http://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/your-former-employees-want-...
Loading comment...
I have watched enough graduate students "stick with it" non-enthusiastically and it doesn't usually work out well. I hate to be black-and-white, and I don't think it's as black-and-white as I'm about to put it, but either you love the work and nothing can keep you from it (or something close to that), or you should leave the PhD program (and there's nothing wrong with that!). I think PhDs do not really made to reward folks who don't fully enjoy the work they are doing, because often the post-graduation prospects are "pay a big price to keep doing your research" or "do something else".
Granted, I don't know much of your situation, so take the advice for what it's worth, but I hope that what I've written here is helpful.
The larger question is whether you need a PhD to do what you want in the world. But don't get too down on academia because of one bad advisor. (There are many better reasons!)
Edit: To your political question, my old boss and I don't talk by design. I've found much better supporters since then, and some bridges should be burned. Your boss may seem like your whole world right now, but that's mostly Stockholm syndrome talking. There are many supportive people -- you just have to ask around.
I was in your shoes, and I didn't leave my advisor. I greatly regret that. I stayed because I felt ethically obliged to, and because I am non-confrontational. I made a big mistake. Even trying to change advisors (within the same university) seemed awkward. And it would indeed have been too awkward and difficult to pull off. I should have just quit.
Five years from now, each of your present-day years will seem much more valuable than it does now. One of your years now has much more leverage now than it will five years from now. Do not waste years on a bad advisor. It sounds like this is the perfect time -- you say you expect another 3 years, which suggests you're 2 or 3 years in right now. One more year, and your identity will get too strongly coupled with your advisor's.
If you're in CS and taking up a CS job, there will not be an expectation of a reference from your advisor, if you can position these 3 years as an extended Masters. Get other references, and be honest but diplomatic about your advisor if asked.
Question this assumption.
There's something that you might not be aware of: you are a valuable resource to your advisor. The Ph.D. students he graduates go on his CV. Somewhere out there is an associate professor for whom graduating an additional student could be the difference between getting tenure and not. Find that person and negotiate a better situation for yourself.