The worst thing is that if you survive it makes you "become one of them" without realising, and the cycle goes on...

As for litigation, there is the Office of Independent Adjudication which deals with this kind of thing. Their website is http://www.oiahe.org.uk/ and they cite case studies of rulings. It is very useful for seeing what was previously considered a "justified" complaint and what wasn't.

Its all too common.

The system is this way because there is a lack of standardisation across PhDs, no real definition of what is adequate supervision and no set "rights" of PhDers (unlike staff or undergrads). Its a recipe for exploitation, and insecurity.

More and more I can see the effect it has on my PhDers. Some are becoming a shell of the person they once were, half of them are recieving student counselling and I find frequently find Prozac boxes in the litter bin.

As many of you know, my ex-supervisor used to be a total nightmare. What I found helped keep him in line was either using a dictaphone to record our supervision sessions (ostensibly "So I dont forget anything important"). This really made him cut down on making wildly ambiguous statements and then not getting pissed off because I wasn't able to fulfil them.

Towards the end I also used to take written records of supervision, and then get him to read and sign them. They agreed specific points that I was able to stick to, and he couldnt just change his mind halfway through without acknowledging that we agreed something else. Both of these helped.

My original motives were to look hollistically at the situation at Pineapple was in, and to avoid this becoming a demonisation of supervisors, which seems to be an easy default. Later on it became more of an exploration about why certain practices persist in academia and why we are probably all guilty of soemthing (or will be in the future).

Before you say "Hey, I would never do that" think of the direct and indirect criticism that has been levelled at me on this just this thread alone for just posing an alternative position, and you can see how its all to easy to react out of anger and frustration.

I didn't take on the students. My PI did, who is the official supervisor (and who is currently stateside).

I am a post-dog that provides supervision. If I didn't do it, it wouldn't happen, and there would be no supervision for the PhDers at all. In my experience most of them are grateful that I read their work, provide comments and feedback.

I am also interested in how you "learn to be a supervisor". Is there an accredited course? Or some kind of recognised specialist training? Do let me know as I can imagine it would vastly increase my future employability (and most of us on this board).

Whoa folks, you seem to have targetted me as a representative of all supervisors.

All I am doing is proposing a hypothesis based on my observations of WHY a certain situation occurs, not to be held to account for it. If you are able to put forward a better model (other than "all supervisors are evil") I would be glad to hear it.

Bear in mind, expectations are different for everyone. Someone may expect to be instructed at PhD level in writing, whereas others will see this as the job of an undergraduate education. If you seriously feel you are getting NOTHING from a supervisor, its equally incumbent on you to either get a new one, or do something about it.

Funnily enough, I don't have problems with my own students. From the gossip I hear I have the rep of "Firm but fair". A few even quite like me after the whole Katie/ Sabrina incident.

If you think it is entirely connected to your PhD, you can pretend you have quit, and that should eliminate the problems in a single stroke.

However, if its due to people approaching a mid life crisis, envying your youth, and you not being stuck in loveless marriages with screaming infants, you may need to find a new job.

Your comment about you "paying someone to teach me badly and hinder your progress" outlines a common misunderstanding. When you are doing a PhD, you are not a normal student in that you are "taught" and are entitled to a certain degree of formal instruction. You are embarking on an apprenticeship, where your work is carried out under the auspices of your supervisor. You are not paying to be taught but to be in a position to learn from the environment. The same as a blacksmith in the 18th century.

Hopefully this will change, but I am not sure. Maybe it will go the American way with formal exam components and quantifiable transferable skills. Then again there is an element of harsh negative feedback integral throughout research. A rejected paper is a rejected paper, a missed grant means you may have to find a new job. I dont think we can take that away.

There is no curriculum, and everything is self guided. There is no PhD recipe that says A+B=C. I can only really step in if something goes wrong, (which usually takes some form of negative criticism).

I am often provide feedback, but really the positive stuff has little to do with me. At this stage the PhD student knows more of the field than I do (as it should be), so its hard for me to say "That was amazing". Its the fact you passed your viva with no corrections, that your first 4 papers appeared in high impact journals, that you have been awarded that grant is the positive feedback.

Fair point.

Before I answer let me re-iterate that I (and most supervisors) are not trained teachers, we don't go on a special supervisor's course and as a post-dog I have management and financial duties (none of which I have been trained for) in addition to my own research.

You are right, there is an element of displacing stress downwards in academia. My boss gets crap, he passes it to me, it gets passed down the chain. Not an excuse but the reason it happens is because there is no other way to displace it. We can't go on expensive holidays like the city-boys. We can't pretend its for a higher purpose like a soldier fighting for his country, or a clergyman doing it for God. Research by its very nature is unknown, and we are too well aware that what we do may never see the light of day.

I am not sure if this is incredibly profound, Confusian wisdom.... but the use of capital letters leads me to believe that its actually someone who hasn't mastered using a computer.

Post-dog! Brilliant term, that sums up my situation perfectly.

back to the original point. I believe the Ivory tower exists for a few, prolific and notable movers and shakers, but that it is built on a foundation of human bones of the downtrodden temporary academic underclass, and cemented together with the tears and sweat of the students.

It sure is nice from the outside though, which is why people still keep coming to the tower.

@ Corrine,

Yeah, its a shame that personal circumstances are not taken into consideration, but that is the reality of our work. Scholarships usually don't give you a few more years funding if there is a family death or you divorce, grants and awards don't respect that you may have suffered from a mental illness.

The sad truth is that we are judged on our "professionalism" at work. Mind you it cuts both ways, if someones supervisor comes onto a student, the excuse that "I was feeling lonely" isnt going to cut it. Most of us wouldnt like it if supervision was always delayed or put off because the supervisors kids needed picking up from school.
Throughout the forum we always complain about them not behaving professionally, all I am doing is pointing out the corollary.

@ Olivia you are absolutely right, the problematic students are the 21-22 year olds rather than the more mature ones. They also tend to be the ones that drifted into it, so don't have the motivation that someone who has been outside and decided it is what they really want to do. That said there are some staight from BSc's (I was myself) who know what they want and go all out for it, so not to tar them all with the same brush.

@ Pineapple, I think you are doing a good job in thinking about the wider implications of why your supervisors are sticking with you, and the whole issue about it being your decision. I believe developing this sort of awareness and insight is far more crucial for you in the long run than people saying "Oh, dont worry about it" (trivialising) or just giving you sympathy (which feels good at the time but doesnt last long).

Kudos to you for that, and taking the balance between where your supervisor are falling short, and what you bring to the table. Its a hard thing to admit where you may have gone wrong, but its a good sign of maturity and wisdom.