Something rubs me the wrong way about this article. I struggle to articulate it, but it would be how success in science now requires political ability.
It's rare to find people who are both good scientists and good politicians.
True, but I also see the wisdom. As a PhD student, chances are you are overworked, in the clutches of the institution, dependent on the higher ups, and being mentally crushed by it all. (Source: know, have known people in such programs.) Trying to reform as well, while being a nobody, has lots of costs and not much expected value.
I would focus on staying sane psychologically and socially, and not feeling I'm wasting my years as much as possible. Though if you can participate in some movement of your colleagues with potential for a positive change, do that. Just don't overburden yourself alone.
I kind of think academia needs to be reformed and unwound from the outside. But I am more and more convinced by the news that the 'outside' might be unable to do it in ways that aren't appalingly dumb. So my faint hope would be that the much maligned "gen Z work ethic" will eventually force some change, and the old academia barons just die out.
Basically it covers only the topic of what you should not do if you're a new researcher, without getting into what you should do and when. So it skews towards cynicism.
It is the stated assumption that competition for limited resources will lead to the most qualified person getting the position. This is true only in the most tautoligical sense. The biggest sin of science 2 is that all the survivors believe that they were the most qualified to practice science 1 as well.
It's rare to find people who are both good scientists and good politicians.