Hi all,
I've been hanging around here recently, posting in reply to some posts, but this is my first 'own' topic. I think it's a great forum, thanks to everyone contributing!

I just had a meeting with my supervisor. I had sent her some important stuff beforehand (funding application material, first year examination paper). She said it was good but she had not read it closely. When I pointed out some specific problems I was having with the stuff, she did give some useful, but obviously quite unspecific advice.

Somehow, after reading on PGF, I was not expecting anything else, so I was not overly dissappointed. Now I have been wondering about the relationship of PhD students to supervisors in general.
Is that maybe exactly what it is supposed to be like? As long as you're on track, supervisors just let you do your thing, and only help (if at all) when they feel or you say that things are going wrong?

cont.
I have found that although my sup is rarely very specific about anything, her advice, which usually comes a bit clouded ("That xy is a very good book" means I should probably read it - why can't she just say "I think you should read that xy book"?), is usually sound. But because I was often expecting much more specific advice, and then being dissappointed, I didn't 'hear' that kind of more subtle stuff.
I have the feeling that although she doesn't often really read what I write for her, our relationship could settle into a quite useful form of getting some general advice, and mostly, new thoughts and inputs, out of our meetings. But the work, at the end of the day, needs to be done by me - and that's the way it should be, no?

This is just 'thinking aloud'. I'm curious if anybody has any thoughts on this?

Hi,
my first post! Agree with you shani about supervision. Initially I blamed my PhD strife on my supervisor and his 'distanced' approach. I'm v junior with no experience in research before beginning 18mnths ago. I said candidly at the start: "I don't know how to go about doing a PhD". His advice was "well you'll spend the first while doing some quiet reading"...
He hasn't set a single deadline in the past 18mnths, so I've learned lots about project management, writing grant proposals, contacting other experts etc. Unfortunately, there is no 'research group'. I'm the only one in my area in a small research centre. When I ask him to read my drafts there tends to be *somewhat* of a delay before he gets back to me (the record so far being 3 months!), and then it's all about grammar and phrasing (and most irritating of all telling me a word didn't exist which I know definitely does exist - a stats term!). [Curiously, he's improved in the last 2mnths, though].

cont
I realised that a PhD is really up to yourself, after reading Pugh's "How to get a PhD"(?). I often get demoralised and think I'm a disappointment to my supervisor (he obviously had faith in me to take me on with so little experience). Plus I compare myself to others - eg my supervisor's previous phd student (10yrs ago incidentally!), literally a demi-god superhero (seriously, he's actually an astronaut and a brain surgeon). Today I reached a new low: came across my own brother's thesis online, of a standard I can't even imagine achieving.
Endgame: I know it's not up to my supervisor to do the work. It's my PhD. What I learn, I learn through working it out for myself. I know that's not what happens in all labs, but maybe I'll learn a lot more about self-reliance, project management and perseverence this way. I genuinely think that's what an 'apprenticeship in research' is about. I manage to convince myself of that occasionally!

it will be fine! It will all be fine! Everything is going to be ok! Everything is going to be fine! Just keep telling yourself that!!! And you will go slowly insane like me... mwaahahahahahahahas

It may be that your supervisors are a bit unsure of themselves, and that's why they don't want to give specific instructions; I'm like that when undergrads ask me to comment of their work (generally I'm quite vague cos I feel unqualified to comment, or don't want to give them advice that will send them in the wrong direction).

On another note I'm suprised to hear how often postgrads on this forum seem to have been allowed to spend extended periods of time reading; are your departments not on your back for results, results, publications, grants?!

thanks for your comments, everyone.
in my case, i don't think my supervisor is vague because she feels unqualified, but rather because she hasn't read what i sent her carefully. rarely, she does read it, and then i do get precise comments. just so i remain on my heels and don't start thinking i can give her uncarefully written stuff
as to the "results": i guess that is subject-specific. i'm in the social sciences and in my first year. over here they basically expect us to do nothing but read and plan our fieldwork in the first year, perhaps hone our methods knowledge in courses. so in my case it's the other way round - it's me who wants to get "results" (that would help me feel i'm actually doing something) but the dept./supervisor want me to take my time.

niamhhavok, welcome to the forum!
with me i guess it is a bit different - i come from a research oriented background and a university where self-directed learning was about the only kind of learning existant. so i never doubted i could handle the PhD situation, but i was very curious on what having a supervisor actually means. i think one other reason my sup remains vague is that she doesn't want to impose anything on me. i really believe she realized much more than i did that i was not so sure about my actual research questions and thus maybe consciously didn't push me in one or other direction but rather gave me the time to figure it out by myself. so that in the end it is really MY project. or maybe i am projecting to much of my wishes into her right now

my supervisor sometimes really annoys me. He's had a lot of experience and students and he knows what he is talking about, but sometimes he doesn't pay enough attention to me! We might have a meeting and discuss X, he'll agree that X is good etc.. and then 2 months later he'll say
"why did you do X? It's wrong"... Oh thanx a lot! I don't know if it is because he has many things to do, but if that is the case, they shouldn't be assigning many students to supervisors who are busy with teaching/admin things/their own research to an extend that they cannot adequately support their students!

i know what you mean, compsci. i'm just wondering what 'adequately' supporting their PhD students actually means. i guess there is a fine line between
seriously advising students making all decisions for the students instead of letting them find their own way
giving students space, letting them develop on their own and ignoring/neglecting them.
yes in some cases i'm sure it's due to them being busy, but then, from what i've heard on this forum, in other cases it seems to be more due to a general disregard of PhD students.