Our dept is bit**ing central - but I have to say it is mainly staff-staff rather than anyone commenting on students. I would consider it to be very dodgy to discuss individual students in that manner.
I think part of it is that academia is so competitive - from an early stage we have to compete against colleagues for pretty much everything - jobs, funding, conferences. It's not particularly healthy.

I don't know, most of the lecturers I've spoken to said the PhD was by far the hardest thing they've ever done. Although when you get a 'proper' job you get overwhelmed with admin, there are other benefits. Teaching in my dept at the moment you effectively have to act at the whim of staff... a couple of weeks ago the convenor of the module I teach on insisted I come in to uni on my research day (I live an hour away) for a ten minute meeting, which basically covered why I need to do his photocopying for him. Whilst that's an extreme example - it wouldn't happen if I were a full lecturer.

I was thinking of switching to Special K, but everyone I know who eats those has the personality of, well, a cereal...

I taught as soon as I began the PhD, the same day as I met my supervisor I taught my first class. Teaching is rarely linked to the actual PhD project. As we all know there are hardly any hard and fast rules regarding qualifications. Shouldn't the original poster know what skills s/he has? Surely before you enter a PhD programme you find out what it involves, rather than asking a forum.

It was Cocoa Pops actually

You shouldn't need to ask a forum what you are capable of teaching, you should already be aware of your own skill set. How do we know what you have experience in???

I am actually Grand High Priestess of the World... and I don't have a post doc.

arachne, I made it clear I was referring to humanities and social science. Maybe scientists are leaving as no-one will employ them due to their complete lack of ability to read (if you are an example of a scientist that is).

I strongly suggest trying to talk to your supervisor about this first, and trying to work some way through it. If not, don't make a complaint yet, ask someone for advice - normally the head of the university's research or graduate department. It does sound as though your sup is out of order, but you need to get someone at an institutional level to support what you are claiming.
Then, complain. Yes a new supervisor may take a while, but it is worth it in the end if it gets you through to completion without total bankruptcy.

Do you not have any real problems?

Hi! That is fairly true Spacey, I was just letting people know the experiences my friends and I have had. In reality any potential supervisor should be able to spot a feasible and a non-feasible project when a student applies for a PhD place. This of course does not happen (and varies on subject area).
All I will say is that without a hypothesis, or at least a clear question to be answered, the PhD process - in my experience - takes a significantly longer time. My old supervisor actively encouraged students to spend their first year 'just reading' - all her PhD students (5) bar me dropped out. And I have a new, very experienced Supervisor, who said that was bad advice. You should have your literature review done within 6 months - from there a 'statement of intent' (question/hypothesis) - and within a year your methodology also.

This is actually a huge bone of contention between me and my friends. Some of us feel that if you haven't decided what you're doing by 3/4 months in, with a strong hypothesis, then something is seriously wrong. Others say the whole first year should be a tentative 'finding out about' process. Different people work differently.
However, and I honestly don't mean to scare you, all my friends who began their PhD with a 'lets find out about' plan have dropped out or gone massively over the completion date (up to 5/6 years full time). You need to sit down with your supervisor and bash this out clearly. If things contradict your hypothesis, deal with them as and when, don't spend years wondering about what could happen

Its fairly common for supervisors to up sticks and go. Its up to your department/research institute to ensure that you have appropriate supervision - your agreement is with them. If there is no-one else suitable at your current institution they have to find you someone (regardless of location) who can see you through to completion.

Instinctively the answer is to go for the supervisor, but the question is - have you met them yet? Could you work effectively with them? As someone who has had to change supervisor (as many of us have) I would love to have a supervisor who could be really in tune with my work. But going for a supervisor alone is putting a lot of faith into one person - and you both have to know that it is going to work.
Sleepy

We have loads too - and europeans. They all say that with a family they prefer the British system where it is much easier to get a permanent, secure job. Although the US may pay more relative to living standards, getting tenure is totally different. (PS this is humanities & Soc Sci)