Although I am normally sympathetic towards people that quit, I don't think that this is a good reason. Almost everyone messes up their first presentation/ gets shocked at the level of questioning. Thats because this is doctoral level, which most of us are not used to. Also that guy is probably a veteran expert doing this for years, and you are still a rookie. Its not a fair comparison.

Do you like your subject? Is your supevisor good? Are you learning something? Are you happy? If the answer to the above questions is yes, don't let this experience demolosh all that.

Secondly, look around for other students or academics in your dept that arent in the clique. You say you get on great with everyone else, so use those people. Talk about it to your supervisor (if you can). I found making friends in other departments really helpful as you get a lot of cross pollination of ideas between disciplines.

Whatever you do, dont take it personally. As can be seen from this board, and the constant struggling there are a lot of insecure or anxious or bitter PhD students/ post docs (me being one of them), and its too easy to get swept up in "It must be something odd about me" rather than maintain that "This situation is screwed up".

This is really tricky to deal with. If the "bullies" were more overt (i.e. physically beating you or trashing your experiments) it would be easier to draw attention to. However, the subtle ostracising is still bullying but it is harder to do anything about it. Sometimes this is actively fostered by the institution, especially those that are quite snobbish/ use divide and rule tactics to maintain the status quo.

First ask "If they behave this way, do I really want to hang around this group?". Perhaps it may be even worse if they invite you into their little circle only to use you as their "whipping post".

Without knowing your feedback its hard to ascertain if its rude or unwarranted.

Sometimes constructive criticism can be construed as being insulting or rude. Its hard to say "There was poor spelling and punctuation throughout the manuscript and this is unacceptable" without sounding patronising at the PhD level. Similarly pointing out inconsistencies and flaws in peoples work is often quite devaluing for people. It can be a bit "Simon Cowell".

Obviously comments like "This article is crap" or "The author is a shithead" are NOT reviewing. However, bear in mind peer reviewers do not get paid for reviewing your manuscript, having to do this in their spare time. If an author has written a poor MS that is hard to read, and very flawed I can see how they would be irritated by "wasting their time", the same as you may be if you bought a rubbish book.

Unfortunately, I would say that the way your supervisor is behaving is NOT acceptable (especially the personal comments about your parents and culture), but it is all too recognisable.

The sheer power differential in PhD supervision relationship means that supervisors often get away with far more than bosses in other jobs.

What you do about it is up to you though. If you are nearly finished/ love everything else about your PhD/ can put up with it then I think you may be better off struggling on. If not perhaps you can arrange to have a co-supervisor or different supervisor?

At the journal review stage they dont know if you are a neophyte PhD student or a veteran professor, so you get scrutinised equally by peers who are (supposed to be) experts. Naturally they are going to take it a bit personally if you make a bad fist of their "turf".

Howevever, you could have also run afoul of some political issue you may be oblivious to. If I were you I would send it to other journals. If they are all equally scathing you may have to face it that your paper may not be so good. If they accept it, then you can chalk it down to a biased reviewer.

Having reviewed several papers (under my supervisors name who got all the credit naturally), I may have a slightly different take.

Some of the papers were very good, and you would include comments that would enhance it. You would HAVE to critique the paper (that is your job as a peer reviewer) but recommend publication at the end.

However, there were also submissions that made you despair about the state of academia! Some were based on VERY dodgy science, full of assumptions and false conclusions and were desevedly slated. Others seemed deliberately dense and confusing, which is a really bad sign if your main job is communicating knowledge.

The ones that got the worst of my wrath were the badly spelt, poorly presented and full of unexplained acronyms and references. Quite frankly if you are submitting this kind of work you deserve all the insults you get back!

Although I accept the above posters experience and concede that people DO get fantastic lectureship/ professor jobs (well somebody has to) academia has changed in the last 10 years. The supply of doctoral graduates has increased in most fields whilst the supply of academic positions with prospects has stagnated.

People have said that a PhD is like a marathon and it really is much more about stamina and endurance than intelligence or ability.

I think the role of the supervisor is really underestimated in academia. Just doing a PhD is not enough for this, and there needs to be a pedogogical and pastoral training for this crucial job.

I feel the adverse effects of having my dictatorial supervisor HAS influenced me not being able to find doctoral level work in the longer term and similar stories of other students being undermined so much they lose confidence is too commonplace.

PhDs definitely put a strain on a relationship, because it is time consuming, pressured and eats up a lot of spare time (that you could be spending with your partner). That said its a real test of a relationship. If it survives the PhD-era its likely it will survive the other ups and downs life will have to throw at it.

For women I think its even more telling, as issues around kids, contributing to housework and following ones own ambition come up. Its a good way to show up any "sexist" elements a male partner may have managed to hide.

Mine didn't survive (the aftermath of my PhD anyway), but in a way its better I found that out now than in the divorce courts, with most of my money gone on lawyers and having access to my kid on alternate Saturdays.

Taking a step back a bit.

I think it is clear to all that that any romantic relationship between Lamp and her supervisors, is untenable. I suspect deep down she realises that otherwise she wouldnt be posting here. At the moment it is still a "crush", its not "love" as I suspect you don't truly know your supervisor outside of a professional context yet, and therefore dont know enough to love him. Its more like limerance.

With regard to how she should deal with her feelings, thats a different question. Perhaps she should look to strengthening her existing relationship. Or exploring what emotions her supervisor is evoking in her and what she is projecting onto her supervisor. Student counselling is good for this, and is available freely in most university settings.

Bear in mind, with an Engineering background, you could do an EngD. This is better paid, linked to industry, highly sought after by employers and gives you a vocational qualification that enables you to work independently. The only reason I know this is that a mate of mine was offered a PhD in engineering and an EngD, and after looking into it he said it was a better proposition.

I guess its different for different PhDs, but I reckon the very real risk in a library based PhD is the isolation. Unlike a scientific PhD that often requires working with a team, clinicans, etc, I can imagine that apart from your supervisor and a few fellow academics, you would pretty much be left to your own devices (although I may be wrong about this).

Also from my uni days the arts PhDs seemed to take longer to finish , and seeemed to get paid lower stipends ((but that may just be my perception and may have changed).

Not great I am afraid. If you read the Times Higher Educational supplement you will see that humanities is an area where there is an oversupply of PhDs looking for lectureship posts. For you to get a lectureship post you would be competing with people with PhDs and often with publications/ book chapters.

Furthermore most universities now see the PhD as a basic pre-requisite, and even those that used to get lectureships without doctorates found that their salaries capped out quite quickly without it.

That story is horrific, but strangely I am not suprised in some ways. My ex supervisor was a total power crazed despot, and he treated his PhD students as if they were idiots and he was doing us a favour if he deigned to speak to us. Interestingly, the other PhD student left at the mid point of his second year and did very well (better job than me and my supervisor actually).

I think some supervisors dont believe in praise and encouragement, but get off on humiliating their students. I know it sounds strange, but you should be glad to be far away from them rather than sticking at it for 3+ years, whilst your mental health gradually deteriorates.