Pros
The only redeeming factors were the health benefits, TRS retirement benefits, and the comradery between RAs due to the shared trauma of working here.
Cons
Management Instability: During my tenure of two years as a research assistant, I witnessed six different supervisors, with some leaving and others being fired during their probationary period. The management seemed more focused on finding "yes" men rather than supervisors who could balance expectations and genuinely support their employees. High Turnover and Lack of Support: The turnover rate was unusually high, primarily attributed to job stress and the lack of guidance from management. The nature of being a research assistant typically includes some turnover, but the level here was concerning. Inadequate Performance Evaluations: Performance evaluations were not taken seriously, often reduced to a mere formality of signing off on emails, contrary to UTHealth policy that requires a detailed discussion between managers and employees. Misleading Job Expectations: Although my title was "Research Assistant," the role was more akin to that of a Clinical Research Coordinator, encompassing responsibilities far beyond mere assistance. This included writing study protocols (typically a PI's job), consenting, screening and enrolling participants, conducting psychological assessments, entering in all data, and even handling clinical procedures like blood draws and EKGs. Despite these extensive duties, the compensation was inadequate, forcing me to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. The is barely above the poverty line and is absolutely not a living wage. Only after relentlessly advocating for a promotion did I receive one. I cried when it became official because it meant I could quit my other jobs. Training and Safety Concerns: The high number of studies relative to the number of staff led to protocol deviations and potential risks to participant safety. The frequent turnover of supervisors meant that training often fell to other research assistants without additional compensation, compromising the quality and safety of the research. Neglect of Employee Wellbeing: Despite being a department focused on mood disorders, there was a stark lack of concern for employee wellbeing, especially for those with disabilities. The disparity in treatment based on demographics and a basic misunderstanding of ADA law were alarming. Ethical Concerns in Hiring Practices: The department's preference for hiring international candidates raised ethical concerns. These employees, bound by visa restrictions, often feared speaking out against unfair practices due to the risk of retaliation or deportation. Conclusion: For a department that should champion mental health and well-being, my experience was starkly contrary, marked by a disregard for staff welfare and a culture of exploitation. Prospective employees should rigorously filter Glassdoor reviews with keywords like "research" or "psychiatry" to get a full scope of the prevailing issues.
