I suspect that this happens much more than people would care to admit. Its natural for people to find others attractive regardless if they are in a relationship or not, and someone knowledgable, authoritative and in a powerful position may enhance that attractiveness. Fair enough.

However, its one thing to have the feelings and another to act on them. It is not at all wise to do anything that would compromise yourself

My friend lived in postgraduate halls of residence during his first year as a clinical psychology trainee. He says it was one of the worst things to do as the halls were always noisy, people kept nicking food from the communal kitchen and he was housed with a group of Chinese students whose English wasn't great and were not intersted in talking to him in any case.

Personally, I spent some time in halls when I started my PhD and thought it was okay, but quite lonely. Its very different from undergrad days when it was a communal built in circle of friends. It was also difficult bringing my (then) girlfriend back (lack of space + quite scuzzy compared to her flat) or inviting friends over.

With regard to your theory, I reckon academics behave badly BECAUSE they didnt stand up to the crap they recieved earlier down the food chain. Perhaps if they had taken action like you have, they wouldnt need to make themselves feel better by being bullying and abusive.

In any case, do keep us posted with your progress, and hopefully you will take these jokers to the cleaners.

This is the best post I have ever read on this forum.

I wish more PhD students were willing to fight for their rights and not put up with sh*tty treatment from supervisors. Hairui, you are a bigger and better person for doing this and I applaud your courage and desire to take action.

This sort of behaviour has to stop, and the more people that go to higher authorities and kick up a stink, means its more likely people in the future won't have to be party to abuse.

My studentship used to pay for all fees, and give me a tax free stipend of just over a £1000 a month. We also got extra funding for conferences. You don't pay council tax and are eligible for NUS student discounts and railcards in the UK.

Its not a huge amount, compared to my friends who were working in professional jobs, but a darn sight better than paying for it yourself.

Just wondering if there is the provision for paid maternity leave that some PhD students seem to get. I knew one RA/PhD student (part time) had 6 months paid maternity leave and a break from her PhD while she had her child. Or are there any hardship funds available etc that you could acccess.

I personally think the lack of support of maternity in PhD students is a human rights issue.

...Or you will hate it even more.

I have always wondered about "PhD masochism". I mean its one thing to continue through the hardship in a subject that you realise you love, but entirely another thing to perservere when you detest everything about the job. Remember, its NOT strange to require guidance, structure, and clear goals. It is normal. (In fact its the rest of us that could be considered strange).

I reckon its that old fear of "not finishing what I started = failure", or fear of what others will think of you, that keeps people imprisoned. But then again, it is a prison of our own making.

Weighing back in here.

I think there is a very big difference in the type of PhD graduate that can take advantage of the opportunity to go into business. It is far easier for someone that has had previous business experience (in a specific area) to do a PhD then come out and obtain a job in industry.

However, for the type of PhD student (like myself) that has never really had a job (ie. straight from undergrad/MSc to PhD) you are often faced with the "lack of work experience", when it comes to taking your skills outside academia. Employers don't look as highly on say a PhD then they may on 3-4 years on the job experience.

Again, the idea that you can go straight from a PhD to industry is a bit of an oversimplification.

Ben Goldacre (a real medical doctor) on the subject of the title doctor

"Unlike “Dietitian” and “Nurse”, doctor is not a “protected title” under law. Anyone is perfectly entitled to call themselves a doctor after getting a non-accredited correspondence course PhD from abroad. Arguably you don’t even need that.

Disappointingly though - and I’ve looked into this because I was hoping we could get up to all kinds of mischief - in the UK you can’t officially confer a title like Professor, or degree like PhD, unless you’re a properly tooled up and recognised educational institution."

You are right, that within the UK you cannot confer a doctorate, but you can get one overseas. Like Dr Gillian McKeith and Dr Paul McKenna (who are still at large I believe).

"And I insist on people using my title everywhere, hotels, office life and so on "

Jesus. Are you even aware how insecure this makes you sound? That you need constant validation from a title that no-one really cares about. From what you are saying, for you its not about the way you live, what you achieve or whose life you touch.

Its all about impressing hotel receptionists and petrol pump attendants into thinking you are clever.

Are you honestly telling me that the greatest achievement in your life is writing a book that about 4 people will read? Not giving birth/ having children? Not saving someones life? Or teaching someone to aspire? Or producing something that will change the world forever (rarely PhD reserach btw). If you think your greatest achievement is already past, what else is there to look forward to?

"not everybody can get a PhD, otherwise everybody would have one"

You are assuming everyone wants one. Not everyone does.

Look, I think you are getting my position wrong. I agree the majority of PhD students work damn hard, and have achieved something. My point isn't to do down their hard work. My point is there is no real "quality control" for PhDs, or standardisation, so there is a lot of variation and no real assurance of quality.

FYI, you CAN use diploma mill titles. In fact the word "Doctor" is NOT a protected title at all. This page goes into further detail about the pointlessness of the title that I can't here

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/09/quack-word-3-doctor.html

But in typical O.Stoll style you attack the person, not the argument. The only thing that is rubbish here is your ability to debate.

"Well, being a Doctor for the rest of your life is worth the pain, I think."

This is by far the weakest reason to do a PhD. You can buy the title of Dr from an online diploma mill. The title Dr doesnt actually mean anything, and if you do think makes you "better" than others, that just reflects an arrogant outlook and your own status craving issues.

As mentioned before in this thread you can get PhDs in medieval farting, so its not necessarily a huge accomplishment beyond any other. The truth is that if you self fund, have an active supervisor and have a carefully selected internal and external examiner, almost anyone can get a PhD.

"But this is changing. I would contend universities ought to be honest that most PhD students won't become academics, but they should ensure their academic staff can prepare PhDs for the many interesting alternative options a PhD can lead to. "

Agree absolutely about this.

However, the PhD (as it stands and as it was initially conceptualised) isnt a "super" degree. It is, and it should be, a scholarly path designed to produce academics. The fact that it can theoretically be used to siphon off people to civil service/ industry/ etc is a criminal waste. It would be like giving an elite training to a SAS commando who ends up guarding a canned food supply. Isnt that wrong?
Despite winning numerous awards and scholarships I am currently working as a temp (explains the free time). Isnt that wrong?

" those who wanted to learn and develop would suffer who you would not be able to do a PhD under restricted numbers."

Again I challenge this, you can still develop and learn without doing a PhD (and get a living wage to boot!). Again, developing and learning is not what a PhD is for IMO, there are a billion better ways to do that.

BTW, while I will confront his arguments, I dont intend to personally attack commonsense. If I have done this I apologise. I am enjoying this debate, and am glad that he is putting his view across, some of which I agree with in principle at least or in an ideal world. I feel everyone should be able to put their view across without being personally criticised.

"old fashioned, economically illiterate argument that only a small number of people should be able to do an undergraduate degree otherwise it becomes devalued."

There are lots that say the expansion of higher education HAS devalued the degree. That almost all jobs require a degree, that used to require just A levels. Another argument for another thread.

"It's great to retain priveleges for those actually who would have a PhD... but the economy would suffer"

How?

On the contrary, those bright and talented people in the workforce quicker, earning immediately and paying higher taxes would probably be better for the economy.

Also how are those Phd drop outs or the 3 out of 10 full-time PhD students that do not complete their doctorates after seven years beneficial to our economy.