I recently started a thread on whether 360 degree reviews were required between supervisors and their students.....I'm writing to add personal perspective to my post. I think it may be quite common to some of us out there.

I received a funded Ph.D. after being awarded a 1st class degree from one of the best universities in my area......greatest limitation was that I achieved without sufficient training in research design. I completed a very simple undergraduate final year project, but did it very well.... I didn't do a Masters.

Before I knew it, I was up to my neck in further research proposals, ethical applications, buying expensive lab equipment, dealing with a new place to live, not getting on with a housemate, recruiting participants, having no family support network etc. There were problems with my equipment when it was delivered, the lab technician had social deficiencies, my 2nd supervisor was in the middle of a nervous breakdown and I was the only student at my Uni undertaking research in the area......so I had no one to discuss things with.
Now from going from being a happy go lucky guy, who was very motivated......I went to being strung up, nervous, disorganised with a fair bit of insomnia thrown in. I think I was not the best person to be around. Oh and I struggled to make friends!
But here is the crux....was I a crap student or a good student in a situation that I didn't have the coping mechanisms or experience to deal with the situation I was in? I think my supervisor still believes that it is the former.
My supervisor is an excellent academic, has great knowledge of his area, loads of publications and a real asset to the department. But does such a background make an academic a good or appropriate supervisor? In this case, I don't think so. Many of us criticise our supervisors, in fact, its probably the main topic here... But I think that this highlights a fundamental problem in the supervisory system rather than in the supervisors themselves:

A) What training is given to a supervisor before they are appointed a student? My understanding is that its normally limited to a short course or reading a manual.
B) Do they understand what motivates their students, and the best way to support individual learning styles? Post-graduate study requires that the student can learn independently and this is easy for some but others learn a different way and may need additional support.
C) Is there a pastoral care system in place and do supervisors understand how to use or access it for their students?
D) Is the supervisory role carefully defined to both the student and supervisor prior to the start of the period of research?

In my personal case, I don't think that there was any clearly defined pathway to help my supervisor be a good supervisor, so is it any wonder that he failed to meet my expectations? I didn't meet his.