Hi, just thought I would throw this to everyone. I have a 2nd supervisor who is quite new to the uni, only recently taken bachelors and masters 2000+, doesnt have a PhD, although he has published a few things. I'm sort of sat here wondering how useful he will be, doesnt seem to have anymore academic experience than me particularly, although I havent yet published anything. Dont sup's have to be more qualified than that. From reading other threads, it appears that 1st sup's are the all important beings. Should I be concerned? Thanks :-)

Second supervisors are generally just appointed in case your first supervisor leaves the university - if you actually get supervision from them, it's a big bonus. I know many people who have never met their 2nd supervisor, so I wouldn't be too concerned about his qualifications. Of course, things differ by university and disciplines.

Generally, a responsible department will not allow faculty to supervise until they have a good few years of experience under their belts.

Well, I meet with my second supervisor quite often. In fact whenever I meet my first. It is good to hear opinions from two people. Sometimes they contradict each other and it's interesting.

I had two, the main one from my college and a second one from another uni. The second one was really important as he brought a different range of expertise and metholodogies to my PhD as it was interdisciplinary. My DoS wasn't a sociologist thought she was perfectly capable otherwise in expertise, but we needed another skillset to complement hers. That happened after my research went in a slightly different direction to what I'd envisaged on my initial proposal and needed extra expertise. It's happened with other students who also needed very specific knowledge that my uni can't provide, usually when the project is cross-disciplinary.

Why do you think he was appointed to supervise you? Has he got a different background that your other supervisor lacks? Though come to think of it, they do seem to give very inexperienced staff to some of our newer PhD students as additional supervisors, possible to train them up for the uni... nice for the staff to have someone to practice on, though I'm not sure how it works out for the students.

One thing I had to be careful about was keeping everyone 'in the loop' as they called it. I saw both my supervisors separately and as a team for tutorials, but we were always careful about emailing a summary of the main points of what was discussed after each meeting so we all knew what was going on. I know someone else has problems with her various supervisors, either with them disagreeing or not knowing what the other has told her to do, so if you can avoid that maybe life will be easier! It worked out fine for me though! :-)

i currently have four supervisors, and god knows who is supposed to be 1st, 2nd or whatever!! if i were you i wouldn't be too concerned, i think it can really help to bounce ideas off more than one person, and they may bring a new perspective or angle that you hadn't previously thought of. they can also be thought of as backup if you have problems with your '1st' supervisor, or if they are away for long periods etc.

don't worry about it too much, i hated having so many people involved to start with but it has actually worked out quite well so far as they all bring something different, eg. one is really good and pretty fast at giving feedback on my written work, another is useful for academic contacts etc. as mentioned in other posts, just try to keep them both in the loop, cc them in on emails and so on, so they are kept up to date with your project.

as for qualifications, i wouldn't think it matters too much, as long as he is not your main supervisor then i see no harm in him being involved. after all, they are only there to 'supervise', you don't have to actually pay any attention to them ;-)