It also seems quite odd to me that they have simply said they can't help. I would talk to student services about any courses that are available to postgraduates in academic writing - most universities have such courses available (mine certainly does!), and maybe try to tease out more from your supervisors? What exactly do they have a problem with -- is it the tone of your writing, the language, structure? It's difficult to know what to work on if you don't know specifically what is wrong!

Haha, that teaches me to check when an OP was posted before writing a paragraph in response....(deleted).

What you say about having no confidence in your work definitely rings bells for me -- the most difficult thing about doing a PhD I've found so far is never getting a 'grade' or explicit indication of how you are doing. It just doesn't seem to happen, although you could always do what I ended up doing and ask if there's anything they are unhappy with! I think a lot of it is to do with the fact that our work is never definitely 'finished' - it might be submitted, or published, but there's always something to add, or something someone would phrase differently. My supervisor told me right at the beginning that it might feel like a shock when I get lots and lots of feedback about written work, and it was (I ended up in tears at home!), but it was needed. Their feedback was constructive and I made sure it was clear that I had taken their comments on board, which they appreciated. They never thought I was 'crap' or not worthy or not suitable, which I obviously worried about after that first feedback, but were just giving opinions on what might make my work better. I find it quite easy to receive this hefty load of feedback now :)

Again, I can't give you much advice about the SP situation as I don't know anyone who has had a similar situation. Is there anybody in the school who you can talk to? There should be someone who is there for PhD students to talk to, even student services.

I can't really offer any advice as I haven't experienced anything like this, but it definitely doesn't sound normal to me. At my Uni we have a 'third party monitor,' i.e a supervisor we only see when we want to talk about our main supervisors. Is there anyone like this at your University?

The last piece of writing I submitted to my supervisor came back with comments everywhere. It's their job to be tough and to push you - I know it's really hard (I literally just posted a thread about imposter syndrome not long ago!) but try not to take it to heart. Just know that as far as I can see this is very normal and your 'guide' is doing their job (as long as the comments are constructive of course!).

Don't worry at all!

That sounds like a lot to go through on top of normal PhD stresses. Could you take some time off, even just a few days to clear your head?

Hi all. I am a first year PhD student, and it's all going really well so far (I think). I'm dealing with the constructive nature of feedback from supervisors (my first article review had over 30 comments from three supervisors!) and I am getting to grips with writing a systematic literature review (my supervisor wants to aim to publish). I suppose the way I'm feeling now is quite natural given that I have never been given this breadth of feedback before - I know it's needed as the research/my thesis needs to be valid and informed, and it's all constructive which is very helpful. But I keep feeling like I know absolutely nothing - I'm guessing this is normal for being two months into a PhD?

I know I'm a lot further along than a lot of other new PhD students - I have already been writing for my supervisor every couple of weeks (and have a good few thousand words by now), she wants to publish a systematic literature review, we have some basic research questions to consider and I'm heading to a conference soon (not to present, just to network/go to talks). But I can't help this feeling of knowing absolutely nothing! My office mates say this is good as it means I am accepting that my knowledge is always growing (and not there yet), is this something to just get used to?

Anyway, apologies for the ramble. I've been lurking here for a while and beyond my question I just wanted to pop my head above the surface and say hello. You all seem very knowledgeable :).

I had a pretty similar experience to the poster above, with one exception because my PhD is interdisciplinary. We went through my application pretty much chronologically, and as the project is a mixture of A and B and the bulk of my experience was in B, they asked me to prepare a 10 min presentation about A (well before the interview). I think that's just because it is interdisciplinary though.

I am currently a PhD student at the OU, and to be honest I have found it to be more rigorous than any of my prior institutions. I suppose it might be because there is this attitude that it is not as good as other universities, so they feel they must be just as if not more rigorous than others. Some of the academics in my department have published work of some importance in the field (neuroscience) as well. All in all, I had some apprehensions before I started, not helped by the reactions I received from others when I told them where I was studying ("oh, so it's not a real PhD then?"), but these have been squashed completely.