In US PhD system, the newly admitted PhD students spend the first complete year doing different lab rotations so that they get acquainted with the different lab cultures, lab groups, their potential supervisors, etc and chose their lab by the end of year and so they get to make a more informed decision on choosing the supervisor and lab after careful analysis and exposure thereby making better matches between PhD students and supervisors and lab but in UK PhD system we need to chose the supervisor and the lab prior to admission and thereby increased mismatch takes place. Do people over here think that we should also have the US system so that we also get ti make more informed decisions??????????

The US system is ridiculously long and won't solve the problem you have now listed in 3 separate threads.

My UK PhD program allowed us to go on rotations in our first year of a 4 year program and after year 1 we also get a masters. We were also very much introduced to almost all of the supervisors within the institute and were given a tutor to help with our final PhD selection. In my opinion the big funders (BHF, Wellcome Trust, ARUK and BBRSC) in the UK are already doing this.

A US PhD in my subject takes on average 8 years. Most do not get academic jobs. It's not easy to find non-academic jobs when you've spent the last 12 years in education (BA + PhD).

I think there are advantages but also some disadvantages of doing a PhD in the US as compared to the UK. But I don't see what it has to do with the potential mis-match between student and lab / supervisor. That can happen anywhere.

Hi Shashank, I am sorry for your problem. But this is a general problem not related to academia even. It happens everyday in workplace that expectations either from supervisor/employer or student/employee are not met. This happens even when two partners or even room mates live together. What you are doing and saying is not helping. Get over it and try either to survive or seek another opportunity.