Possibilities in and after grad school

As much as we'd all like to live in a just world where every department is composed of brilliant professors who are skilled mentors whose only interests are their research and their students, that's just not possible from the sheer numbers. So, if you do wind up with an advisor or department that impedes your career progress, what recourse do you have? Particular instances of this question pop up all the time, and there seem to be exactly two answers:

• 
  

  Leave the program. You can't have a good career without the support of your advisor. Besides, life outside academia isn't so bad: You get more money, you have less stress, etc.

  
  


• 
  

  Stay in the program regardless of whatever happens. There's no possibility for doing research, or having autonomy over your own work, or even just thinking about hard, unsolved problems outside of academia. Do whatever takes to stay in, because you can't get back in if you leave.

  
  

Those do seem to be the only options. The advice often comes up that you'll somehow ultimately find a way to resolve the situation favorably if you just want it enough or are talented enough, but I've seen little indication of exactly how that's supposed to work in practice. It's hard to switch advisors (particularly if the situation gets bad enough that you feel you have no other choice); it's nearly impossible to transfer to a different school; you can't ever get back into academia once you leave; and there's no opportunity outside of academia for the same type and level of work. (The latter is the case in math, at least, though I suppose the NSA exists if you're in the appropriate subfield and don't have moral objections to that kind of work.) So, two questions:

1) Is that assessment of the options correct? That is, is there really nothing you can do if you want to go into academia except hope that your advisor/department-head/etc. randomly deigns to let you continue your career? (Again, I'm sure most are wonderful, but there have to be a few that just suck.)

2) If that's the case, why is the situation in academia so bad? I don't know of any other sector that gives people as much autonomy and has such talented people at every level as academia, yet success there seems to boil down to rolling a 20-sided die and hoping for the best. Why can't we come up with a better system? Or do things work out much better for everyone else?