Hello all,

This is my first post, well, more of a rant really. I don't think it's sensible to identify my dept. for obvious reasons. Just need to vent really. That seems to be partly why some of us are here. Anyway.

First, like many, I am going through the AHRC process. Relevant stats: borderline first, MA distinction. First year PhD. Rejected last year, it happens, no big deal, and I realize I'm fortunate to be able to self-fund. Anyway, today, I go to hand in the form, and what do I see, but the ranking/reference forms on a desk. Now, I would not go through them, I only looked at what was on top of the pile as it was difficult NOT to notice, and what do I see? That I have been ranked, what sounds tantamount, to being stupid. Few received distinctions last year, out of around twenty of us. Of those, we all received similar grades. I don't expect to be outstanding etc, but neither do I expect to be classified as one step up from 'Marginal' either.

Thing is, because of the AHRC cap, only four people from both the MA and PhD programs can apply this year. There are, I think, three, including me, applying from the PHD, and I have no idea from the MA. Further, only those with distinctions and/or firsts can apply. Given that we are all disadvantaged from the start because of this (in comparison to other years), I am quite upset to discover I am now v. unlikely to even make it through to the assessors.

I'd be in a better mood if I didn't SEE the forms; but they were right there in front of me. My supervisor actually gave me an excellent reference, it is the person doing the dept. ranking/grading of application that is the problem - and this is not the first time they have upset PhD students. Not like I can complain either as we're not supposed to see this information, and it would burn bridges. The rationale baffles me as I was amongst the few who got the dist.

Realize this is sounding bitter! Suppose, also, because I had some fairly dramatic circumstances, which, despite providing medical evidence, have obviously been ignored. Not just me though, same thing has happened to a friend. Really think that some of these lecturers would only think personal circumstances affected work if, say, your house burned down, preferably, killing all your loved ones too. Anything short of that, you should just suck it up, and get on with things. Has anyone else experienced a similar attitude?

Second, supervision changed without hardly any notice, i.e., none! This was despite being told, when I applied, I'd have the same supervisor for at least the first year. I applied largely on that basis. Said supervisor actually wanted to continue supervising me, but was overruled. I can't go into details as I don't want to identify myself. Suffice to say, I feel misled, and that, to some extent, the dept. just wants to get people on the PhD programme and deal with anything else later.

These things, combined with other personal circumstances, have left me feeling really fed up. I really enjoy my subject, but am sick of the biases which DO exist (contra to claims otherwise), the judgemental attitudes, the feeling that unless you are working 12 hour days, you are not good enough.

Being regarded as academically substandard by one or two of the lecs. As I said, I knew I was not going to be 'outstanding' or whatever the forms say, but it is a lie to place me in the bottom half of the group, based on grades. And I can't even do anything about it.

It's not even all about the money (which obviously helps), but seeing what amounts to dishonesty, in my view is a bitter pill to swallow. The person responsible for it has made nasty comments about other people before, and even went as far to sit somebody down, and give her a long list of reasons of why she was not as good as somebody else!! Just not a very nice person, and we have to bear the brunt of it.

I thought doing a PhD would be mostly enjoyable: I didn't realize the extent to which petty attitudes would start to bother me. I hadn't really noticed them before (been in the same dept. since undergrad), but it has become really apparent this year. Not just with the AHRC, but with comments that do get passed on about other things. There is such an emphasis on impartiality, but really, it does not seem that way at times.

I seem to be reaching a point where I just want to get the PhD and get the hell away from the dept., or start investigating other options, but I guess similar problems exist elsewhere.
This post is going to go on and on, already had to break it up into bits. Just wanted to vent, and figured at least some fellow PhD'ers would appreciate the sort of problems I'm on about.

Sorry to hear you're going through a tough time.. I swear I didn't know any of these problems existed as my PhD was so easy compared to all this crap loads of you guys are going through.. however, this isn't a boast.. honest, as I've had morons in my life as well.

As hard as it is - I'd ignore what you read and just grit your teeth and get on with it. I had *so* many people tell me TO MY FACE I was dim.. stupid.. 'blondes with a big chest go into porn, they don't get PhD's...' 4 years later.. guess who has had the last laugh...

Yes, it was crap reading them and it was unprofessional for whoever to leave them on the desk - but it's done. If I were you I would never trust the lecturer who gave you the nasty comments, visualise them dying in many horrible ways in your head and think once you have your PhD.. you can stick two fingers up at them as you'll be equal to them

Thanks for replying. It can be very satisfying to prove others wrong.

It is this constant feeling of having to prove yourself that annoys me: I thought I'd proven I could do a PhD by (a) getting a good MA and (b) having a supervisor who wanted to supervise me, told me I was a good AHRC candidate this year etc.

As I said, it's not her, it's the graduate administrator (another lec.) who coordinates the AHRC process. He hasn't written anything, but the grading speaks volumes. I would rather have been told not to apply from the outset. The forms are very time consuming, and I now feel I've wasted huge amounts of time as I'm unlikely to make the final cut.

The same lecturer has also made comments about the MA module grades. When one of my friends did better than everybody on a module, he said, openly: "you would never believe who got that mark given her usual level." It is one thing to think it, another to say it, as these remarks, whilst apparently innocuous, do get back to people, and it can be really demoralizing.

I think I could easily transfer elsewhere as a self-funded student, but I don't see it worth the hassle. Now I'm resigned to getting on with it, and getting away from the negative influences. I can't be the only one disillusioned with the back-stabbing, surely.

The problem with the AHRC ranking process is that it is independent of the rank by marks - otherwise there would be no point in asking depts to rank candidates. That can work well if used properly but also means it's very subjective.

I would hardly call your ranking level 'stupid' - presumably this is an order of ranking among people who all got firsts/distinctions. The ranking is not the final word either - or there would be no point in submitting more than one candidate. The project topic itself also carries a lot of weight.

It is hard when you rely on funding like AHRC - and it is a PITA to do all that paperwork for nothing (which I did as I knew I would be outside their subject but was obliged to apply to fulfil another funding source requirement).

As you are self-funding I would consider very carefully whether you really want to stay where you are - perhpas you do - but it should be a considered choice. If you can self-fund - the world is your oyster!

Hi,

Thanks for that, I know it's not a huge thing. My ranking said: "Good - showing potential for doctoral research." The notes on the form say a higher ranking should be used for those who came in the top 10% of the class. The next one up was "Very good - showing high potential etc" - it's just demoralizing. What more am I supposed to be doing at this point?

I mean, what more to do, compared to others? The others applying are not substantially better than me grade-wise. There is only a difference of one or two marks between us all. One of them did worse at undergrad than I did. The other doesn't have a first philosophy degree (but did well on the MA). It makes you feel undervalued.

I wonder about the implications of transferring universities, as I do want an academic career, and with it being a small community, it is in my long-term interests not to cause a fuss.

I don't think the problem with the funding application is all that serious TBH but I was more taken by the change of supervisor without discussion. Now that kind of thing would worry me - do you like your new supervisor and just how much control will you have over your work?

The new sup. is actually excellent, and the plan was to transfer to him eventually anyway (reason for change is that mine retired this year, but was still taking on PhD's, hence, being told I could remain with her).

As an individual, my sup. is supportive, it is the dept. that is proving to be the problem. If they regard you as being below average, despite getting the grades, it's a blow to your self-confidence.

I do feel misled about the supervision, and I'm beginning to realize that my options are not limited. I'd feel bad complaining to my sup., as he is a genuinely nice, supportive person.