Doctoring the system - Comments

What a great article - I endorse all that is said. Having just taken time out from our PGR Induction day to read this article I can add one other piece of advice about Induction - get the VC to welcome them and this shows them that they are important to the Institution. Our VC was great this morning, not only boosting the students but also the Graduate School staff who were made to feel valued and important.

I agree with much of this - though having a central graduate team does not necessarily mean better communication - but it does give a route to go to for shared issues (though in my current experience that is really not paying the dividends it could or should). I welcome the point particularly about induction. In the department where I work, there was a half-hearted attempt at induction when I started, just scraping the mimimum legal requirements about safety with a very cursory trawl through some facilities. I immediately introduced a serious induction programme including a chair's welcome, networking opportuities, talks on expectations of performance, patenting work, publishing output, skills development, professional membership, reporting expectations, facilities and staff in the department and an explaination of how to find up to date information. This also included welcome dinners/networking opportunities in dependent and related departments and an explanation of our relationship with these. Team building and skills courses are also included in the early part of the year. The induction is also in a high-quality teaching space, and is treated very seriously by all participating staff. Taught students are also included in parts, since they will become part of the same research groups later in the year and need to know names and faces. The effect of the new induction programme was magnificent.. I know its my project, but I was surprised at how successful it was at bonding students, but most of all how it made a noticable and immediate difference to conformity on reporting and participation in personal development - the key really is to say 'we do things with quality, we expect and demand quality and hassle you if we don't get it. Conformity to reporting deadlines is now over 80% with those not reporting on time giving written or verbal reasons for not doing so ahead of deadline. The trick is really to stamp expectation and quality in on the first weeks of arrival. This is what one would call 'rewarding a correct decision' letting them know they have invested three years of their life in an institution who cares what they do and who they are - we don't always live up to this but telling people that is what you are aiming for works wonders, and gives them permission to complain about what doesn't work.. and permission to complain gives me pressure and an excuse to solve things - which is the virtuous cycle everyone goes on about - just for the record we are the most successful department in my institution at this, so something works!

I would not wish to argue against the intent of this article but would just point out that the notion of a 'failed' doctoral candidate is not a simple one. Strictly a candidate can only 'fail' their PhD if it gets to examination and the examiners deem it flawed beyond redemption (not a common occurrence). 'Fail' in this article seems to actually mean 'withdrawn'. If so we are into complex territory, since reasons for withdrawal are many and varied, particularly in institutions that actively embrace an inclusive approach to doctoral studies and welcome applicants of all ages and motives (ie not just the 21 year old with academic career aspirations - and usually funding attached). In such cases withdrawal is in my experience likely to be as much about life-events as anything else. Sometimes withdrawal is actually a measure of personal success for the candidate, where opportunities outside of the academy arise as a result of their studies to date. Of course it is regrettable when any doctoral student leaves, the important thing, as the article acknowledges, is that institutions understand why. But labelling all such instances as a failure is too simplistic.

It is also worthwhile at least questioning how many of the UK's PhD students are "isolated, angry and desolate". We are in danger of perpetuating a stereotypical image of PhD students. Sure, some are bound to come into this category and that is to be regretted, but it must equally be acknowledged that UK universities have made enormous progress in the last decade or more with respect to provision of postgraduate support (as another article this week makes plain). In addition, the HEA Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) for 2009 showed 85% of respondents said that their experience matched or exceeded their expectations (although of course they may have had very low expectations in the first place). Another noticable feature of the entire PRES survey is that responses to all questions elicited a mean positive response (3.00 or above) as far as I can remember.

Whilst I can see Paul's point, I would put this type of thinking into the 'its not my fault, they are adults, so why is it my problem' type of thinking - sure some actively decide to withdraw, but many fade away, get less and less motivated, are not contacted by departments, supervisors or colleagues and lose direction - sure one could easily say 'tough' but in the same way that large companies want to find out why people leave and what they can do about it, so should universities - the point is, Paul that you don't know why people left in the examples you give and you hope that speculating that they may have done it 'positively' you can offset the fear and alternative speculation that they did it because they were let down. and could have been managed better - but weren't. BE careful that you aren'y using a complicated argument just to offset your responsibility and guilt. I can speak both personally and prefessionally about this - my supervisor in a research projects I worked on was utterly awful, and I only realised a few years ago that that wasn't my fault. I simple wasn't given a good example to compare to, nor any guidance as to whether my experience was normal or not (needless to say my supervisor said it was). Professionally I have turned around two or three candidates who have come to me, not their supervisor, to ask the procedures for withdrawal. Asking why and getting into a looser conversation prompted confessions about serious breaches of even the basic supervisory needs being met and we worked at strategies to gently and informally kick that supervisor's butt using the student as initiator or usd the oportunity to gain them breathning space, recommend a holiday, giving them permission to tell their super to get off their back, and giving them permission to ignore hard-driving demands and disappear for a week if they chose to. Managing PhD students is a holistic activity - and it needs all in the department to be able to drop tools and side with the student against the department, his or her workload, their landlord, their bank, a supplier of equipment, their partner if needs be as one would with any star high performer one knew. You can't pick it all up, but letting them know that you would if they let you lends them a lot of authority. I have been battered politically for standing up for students - and bloody right too.

This is a great article and has came just at the right time for me. I'm starting a 3 year PhD just now and the road seems very long. Reading about other PhD students' experiences and having helpful advice encourages me to stay focused.

Jeremy, I am fortunate to work in an institution that does exactly what you suggest, and we do assess reasons for withdrawal for every student that does so. We also exit survey every successful student because we acknowledge that a completed student may not always have been a happy student too. Our relationship with our students is such that they are neither shy in asking for help in problem resolution nor in providing reasons for withdrawal or other problems even if completed. It's complex, as my previous posts suggest.

Much of Tara Brabazon's piece makes sense, but she leaves out several important points. 1. The British 3 year PhD system is rapidly becoming non-competitive with the rest of the EU, and certainly with the US. The provision of a first year that is an 'M Res' enables a student not only to select his/her project with more certainty, but also begin it with some of the intellectual and practical skills that it will need. This will greatly reduce non-completion rates. 2. The graduate 'centre' she describes (I assume she means a Graduate school) is essential in providing a whole series of supportive measures, not the least of which is education: access to courses or other labs that have expertise that the student (and his/her lab) may lack. This is expensive, but essential. 3. Now to a more difficult point. Graduate training in research which, I heartily agree, is totally different from undergraduate training, requires a strong research environment. This means that graduate (research) training needs to be concentrated entirely on institutions that have a wide and prominent level of research activity at an international level. Other institutions, which have enormous value in other contexts, should focus on these strengths, not PhD training. Already I hear cries of 'elitism' but there is a point to be debated here. We risk wasting some of our young research talent if we put them in inappropriate environments.

Paul's approaches are getting more worrying I'm afraid. I worked for BT once. A letter was written to the BT internal magazine by someone who had not received adequate training, and was in a disciplinary hearing for having given incorrect advice - he had explained procedures valid at his original training, but that had been superceded - new staff had been trained in these procedures, long-stayers hadn't. His letter proposed a refresher training opportunity be given to people at least each year, but best every six months. He also said that recent satisfaction surveys would not have picked this up because there were not questions about having the knowledge needed to do the job. Sensible you'd think.. ................................................................................................................. The reply letter from management could be summarised thus: 'There isn't a problem we know this because our satisfaction survey said that 85% of people are satisfied in their work' ie. managers sought only to bat away a valid criticism with some stats about something else. Its clear that whatever the blame route some students have difficulty in what is arguably one of the most difficult courses in higher education.. and people like Paul seem to think this can't be true, so therefor it isn't true. Managing problems first needs you to be able to see them, someone who can't hear an engine note or feel a flat tyre shouldn't be in charge of the maintainance schedule on a Formula one vehicle, people who can't admit that a PhD is a weird disorientating stressful and isolating experience shouldn't really be pontificating about whether there is a problem or not. Denial isn't the same as dealing with a problem... Ostriches who get eaten know this well.

Aha! A satisfaction survey that gives results in terms of the percentages of respondents, but doesn't assess how representative those respondents were, or (I'd bet) made sure that sampling was representatively random! A re-word of our satisfaction survey produced an on-balance posive response thus... ' I am regularly consulted on issues tht surround my work - 5. Strongly agree, 4 Agree, 3 neutral 2 disagree, 1 strongly disagree to I am regularly consulted on issues tht surround my work - 5. This applies 100% of the time 4 this applies 80% of the time 3 this applies 50% of the time 2 this applies 25% of the time 1 this never applies. Reporting all but a 1 means 'a positive reponse to being consulted was received.

Jeremy, I am not for one moment refusing to see that there are issues around PhD studies, merely offering a counter to some simplistic statements and pointing to appropriate evidence where it exists. Your BT example is an interesting one, and I don't doubt it, but the HEA PRES survey is independent of individual universities and completely transparent in its outcomes. It would be odd to say that we should collect evidence as to what students think of their experiences and then completely disregard the data collected...

It would, but Tara's point is that for every failed PhD there is a personal tragedy, not that 100% of PhD students were unsatisfied or failed and I think she is right in that. If the students I had caught up with had faded away and disappeared its unlikely a) they would have filled in a satisfaction survey or b) have been one of your 85% if they had.

The structures to support doctoral students can turn completion within the period is one of the task for PhD scholar. We are measuring following points (i) Admission through doctoral guidance committee prelimenary workout for the interest of topic of research correlation with supervisors (ii)Taking research skill test :selection of topic,research output,knowledge about standard books, reviewed journals ,websites,what output for human sustainability, advancement through creativity,encouragement for reserch projects, (iii)Personal interview to find out interest in specific field as interdisciplinary aspets (IV)Workout for synopsis of course (v) PhD Comphrhensive examination by the supervisor (v) Reccomendation od supervisor for the presentation of coursework, peoblem of research to expert as verification of new research work Recognition of synopsis as registration of topic (vi) Report for every six month (vii)paritcipation and presentation of research work od scholar and supervisors So above supports from the university will be more helpful along with Tara Brabazon sets of ten-point plan . DR.R.C.CHHIPA ,JAIPUR

The fact that research can be controversial, and in any case could well be political, has not been addressed in the article. Besides the research itself, the students themselves are political subjects immersed in a political environment, where race or nationality, and sex and sexuality are among the sources of conflict that can affect the completion of the research thesis. Worse yet, sometimes these are completely out of the control of the students themselves. Feminism, and other groups vying for power in an environment known for its scarce resources is not a pleasant place to be, without the necessary support, financial and otherwise. I agree with the distinction made by Paul Davies that being deemed withdrawn is not the same as a candidate being failed. But the consequences can be the same when the withdrawn student cannot offer an adequate explanation for potential employers or other universities when applying for jobs or to grad school. An incomplete degree gives the impression that the student was incapable of doing the work, or if the reason given was lack of funding, then it appears as though the withdrawn student either lacked ability or their proposed research was not worthwhile. I'm not sure that the consequences of letting a student down are fully realized by those involved. The results can be devastating and life-changing, to be treated in this manner.

As we know there is considerable debate about whether there should be more (or indeed total) concentration of PhD students in certain research intensive universities. Polarised views are quick to appear, so it is worth beginning to consider this in a bit more detail than usually hits the headlines. First, the Harris report long ago argued for 'critical mass' in postgrad education (an argument that continues as the the basis for the rallying call for concentration). But the report also accepted that notions such as critical mass are probably irrelevant, or certainly less relevant, in some disciplines (particularly in the arts and humanities). So concentration in some subjects (such as biochemistry or particle physics) seems sensible given the resources required and the need for real teamwork. I find it hard to believe that even the University of Poppleton would manage to convince a funder that they should support a particle physics PhD at that university (Laurie please prove me wrong!); but the real need for concentration in other areas (eg history or art and design) is less obvious. Second, arguments about critical mass assume that a research environment is purely an internal University resource, to be pulled from the shelf when required. It is not just that, though I am not suggesting that lack of any internal vibrancy is a good thing. Crucially it is also external to any individual university via relationships with other universities, subject associations, conferences and personal connections etc. Finally, it should be remembered that the vast majority of PhD students are already concentrated in relatively few universities (see HESA data). This means that the HEFCE completion data showing that 76% of full-time students complete in 10 years (72% in 7 years) and that 48% of part-time students complete in 10 years (35% in 7 years) is largely a reflection of those same institutions. I will leave others to give their views on whether this necessarily supports further concentration of all PhD students. As I keep saying these are complex matters, which may not be conducive to headlines. But as many letter writers to the THE continually say, heaven help the academy if we allow arguments on whatever side without some evidence base.

Sue, you make some valid points about politics, and I have no doubt that often this is one the underlying reasons when students do feel isolated and angry. I realise that you are in Canada and I don't know the Canadian system too well, but for those who think the UK should move to the US model of PhD study (simply having a Grad School does not equate to this) please read "Leaving the Ivory Tower", an examination of the US system. There non-completion/withdrawal is charmingly called "the attrition rate", and it is 50%.

It became obvious to me at some point that not all those who start their PhDs can ever hope to finish, no matter which country they are in (I don't believe it has been stated anywhere here what the rate of attrition for PhD students is in the UK, btw.) I had thought once, rather naively, that ending up with a PhD depended on merit - having the ability to do it, the determination, and a challenging research subject with new ideas. But these aren't even half the problem, are they. Canada requires a MA degree be earned before doing the PhD, at least in Sociology, and I believe the US has similar standards. So, lack of preparation for doing a PhD in the US probably has little to do with a 50% dropout rate. I don't know how general this UK data is of Paul's - "76% of full-time students complete in 10 years (72% in 7 years) and that 48% of part-time students complete in 10 years (35% in 7 years)". I had understood limitations were going to be put into effect a number of years ago to get students to complete in good time. If these stats can be made sense of in this manner, they suggest that 25% FT and 50% PT don't complete within a reasonable time frame. That adds up to 75% of total students not putting as much into it as they could.

This is a really interesting article. There’s an issue here that isn’t covered though. That’s the ratio on submission between pass with minor corrections, and refer for further work (3 months or a year, depending on the institution). There seems to be an expectation that maybe 50% of submissions will result in a delay of the pass while further work is done. I’ve learned of a University, in Switzerland, where the expectation is that almost all students will pass (with corrections) the first time they submit, and that its considered exceptional for further work to be done - by the student and the supervisors/examiners). They manage this by allowing more time than we do for submission (5 years max) and use the extra time to ensure the students’ work is seen by several members of staff and it goes through a kind of internal examination process before the final viva. It’s an interesting process and I wonder whether any UK university follows a similar process?

David's point is interesting, but interesting of what happens to a debate when people bring statistics that relate to a slightly different debate in. Tara's article refers to non-completion and good management that could prevent this - I've just read an article elsewhere that shows how little regard some academics have for good management, and if left to their own devices many academics get 'what I think' confused with 'what professorial behaviour should be like' and I think Tara has given some good guidelines for how to get departments to work better. The wirry I have is that academics wil fail to see how importnt it is to recognise the quality of administration needed to achieve all this - in most organisations dedicated teams work on employee needs like the above and proper respect is given to those teams to achieve these aims. In universities often the people who have the drive, time and skills needed to make some of these things work are treated as glorified filing staff by people who really have very lilttle proper management experience yet who can decide salaries. The submission time that David refers to is really a manuipulation, but in my case most students achieve a final submission within 4 years (many in about 3.5 years) and the correction cycle is 3-6 months typically when it is needed - about 10% get submission-viva-pass without minor corrections. We would be very converned if a student took 5 years to submit, but about three years ago that wasn't all that rare - the definite rule for us is that once someone has taken more than a year to submit, chances are they never will - they have either got a job where a PhD is not required and they need the time to work, or they have got a job where the work they did in their PhD is required but not the qualififcation. Tara is right in that this is where the personal tragedy starts to unfold - I am sure we would have people back to finish of a PhD, but they think we won't and they go through the rest of their life thinking 'if only' - and they may even find that jumping up a salary notch or two is denied because of that 'if only'

sincerely...everybody that i know wants to get over the devil that it is and still not face the deeep blue see..ever again..its a lenghty article..i hope i can finish it someday! But its a considerate gesture from the investitures!

Something touched on in Paul's comment about the merits of concentrations (or not) of PhD students in particular subjects struck a chord with me. I'm doing a PhD, just starting my 3rd year, at a university which does have a Graduate School, and does have centralised generic 'research training' modules, and so on (I don't know about the exit interviews or student files). But if I'm honest, other than the vague sense of "we're all doing PhDs so we should be friends" community, I've found little benefit (to me, at least) accruing from the generic training provided by the Grad School. People's research areas are - by their very nature - specialised. Many students are of course going to feel alone and isolated, since they are (hopefully) in the vanguard of a field of research. There really isn't that much in the way of "one size fits all" provision that is especially useful, at least in my experience (and that's not to criticise the level of efforts that have been made; it's just there's only so much generic "key skills" fluff I can stand). What _has_ been far, far more valuable at keeping me on track, exposing me to new avenues of research, and allowing me to calibrate what I'm doing with other PhD students, is going to conferences and doctoral consortia where students in a similar field, doing related research, from different institutions around the world, can come together and explain their research to each other. Comparing notes on what is expected from (and provided to) PhD students at different institutions and with different kinds of supervisor, but with similar research areas, has been incredibly useful. If there is any way that university departments or research groups can help (e.g. fund) or encourage their PhD students to meet their opposite numbers from other institutions, I feel this will dramatically reduce feelings of isolation and not knowing how to proceed. Once you know you have colleagues who are facing similar challenges, in a similar domain to you - and can advise and make _specific_ suggestions about your research rather than vague generalised ones about "what it means to be a researcher", the journey doesn't seem so scary. The one area I can see a generic university-wide graduate student training course being useful is in university politics: how the power structures work, the historical structural and personnel changes and disagreements which have led to the current setup, where invisible walls and little empires might be run into (and why), the machinations of funding, and so on. This would be have been very useful indeed, and relevant to all the grad students across the university, but it's very unlikely that it would ever be sanctioned!

Sue, the figures I gave were for at minimum for all English universities combined (I can't remember offhand whether Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were included). Withdrawal rate as such is not measured, but you can at least see the measure of non-completion after 7 and 10 years (and if its not in by then its probably not likely to be). You raise an interesting point that begs the question "what is an acceptable non-completion or withdrawal rate" even if the best possible facilities and support are available. Here in the UK we have acceptable benchmarks for undergraduate dropout, but seem to believe that there exists a perfect system for 100% completions at PhD (if only we could find it). DL agree completely about importance of support for attending conferences etc. many universities do give this support, get asking...and if not consider campaining!

Jeremy wrote about the need for academics to recognise the quality of administration needed to achieve all this - above and beyound typical employee needs like pensions and pay. I believe the answer may have been given by DL, who suggests a "generic university-wide graduate student training course . . . how the power structures work, the historical structural and personnel changes and disagreements which have led to the current setup, where invisible walls and little empires might be run into (and why), the machinations of funding, and so on," but something to help academics might be to give them such a course also. I think they can get caught up in their own little lives - their own research, the conflicts that arise from that in the university, not to mention the lack of time to deal with it all. If they lose sight of the larger picture, that's when bad judgements could result - such as dismissing students whose politics are different from theirs. Jeremy mentions the time factor too, in passing, but in academics real life isn't that of utmost importance, and isn't that one reason why some incomplete's happen? He says "they have either got a job where a PhD is not required and they need the time to work, or they have got a job where the work they did in their PhD is required but not the qualififcation. Tara is right in that this is where the personal tragedy starts to unfold - I am sure we would have people back to finish of a PhD, but they think we won't and they go through the rest of their life thinking 'if only' - and they may even find that jumping up a salary notch or two is denied because of that 'if only'". I think I should add here that it is not just students who have made that decision to push a student out of university, or to cut off communication so that the PhD might never get finished. Academics are not beyond making decisions that forever affect the lives of some of their students. And that's one good reason why they, as academics, need to have a workshop or some kind of meeting at which the ideas of DL, here, are presented. Keep academics looking at the big picture. They are just human, and can get overloaded. It's unfair when a student without adequate funding, or a husband at the university, or a supportive social network can simply be let go. Paul - my figures were wrong but it doesn't really matter - the numbers hanging on to their PhD work after 10 years is appalling - must be 40%, from data you gave. I do think UK universities have an answer for the high dropout rate however, if no restrictions are placed on finishing times. Give them enough time and they'll die and can't be seen as dropouts. If this is so important why isn't someone doing research on it. Why doesn't someone examine what else students of the PhD were doing for the 10 or more years that kept them from completing.

I think that the article is spot on. Many of the discussed features are implemented in the university where i'm doing my PhD and i think it works. I think that Post Graduate centres exist and are very important, they provide community and friends. But sometimes they are so small that it represents a problem. Should something happen a student faces a dilemma - keep quiet, smile and bear or maybe be honest but then have ramification of a centre's director not saying 'hello' in the corridor. There may not be anyone to turn to if something doesn't go right with other students or staff in the centres. There is no anonymity in providing feed-back - which sometimes matter if a students wants to give constructive feedback but knows that a member of staff can be too 'sensitive' even towards the constructive criticism - and most academics are that sensitive - even if we try to delude ourselves that we are not. I think it's a great article and there should be more written on this topic!

I can't imagine a Graduate Centre's director being that immature to ignore, or be on the point of being rude, to one of the many students under his control, as Mary suggests might occur. It must be a very big problem, indeed. On the other hand, to be dismissed in that way because of some preceived slight or misunderstanding by a professor or lecturer one has taken classes with and whose work one admires, and who one might be interested in working with on a Masters or PhD, is another thing. Doing a PhD seems very much about the relationships and networks a student manages to develop. Already being a part of the university establishment in some way before one proceeds, through family or social network, can be a distinct advantage. Seeing yourself as one of them, as Mary does, in her use of "we," expecting to be included as a natural part of the system's offering, makes for a different kind of experience than as one of the less favoured social categories. Tara Brazabon's attitude towards older, female students is on the verge of being ageist (see item # 3). If it had been young WHITE male scientists on scholarships, and if the next sentence had spoken of black scholars, there would be some questions raised about her train of thought in the evaluation of her dean. It would be bordering on the ridiculous to speak in this way about black people, but it's still acceptable to say such things about older people, females in particular? It's difficult to be seen as a serious student when so much acts against us, when we are already seen as being less capable, less knowledgeable, and not quick enough. I am concerned, also, about the use 'patterns' can be put to (as mentioned in the article). It's a way our system has of destroying a person, by continuing the pattern, unconsciously or otherwise. That's one reason that once a person's career takes off it will more than likely continue to do so, by 'gaining momentum'. The same happens when a person takes a fall. It's too easy for others to come along and kick the person down further instead of helping them up. Just continuing the pattern.

Been resisting the urge for a while - but ever since blabberon has dominated this site the urge to read has hit rock bottom. I know I 'aint the only one thinking this. Please, just ... STFU already.

Sick, I know how you feel. I find it extremely difficult to read stuff written by some people who are supposed to know what they are writing about but sometimes you wonder if they do. So what are you gonna do - it's called freedom of speech, I guess. If you don't get anything out of what you read it may be because it aint worth reading or, it may be because it is, but is particularly sensitive to you and your own personal experience.

DL's point is well made: "...it's just there's only so much generic "key skills" fluff I can stand" - I have to admit to a slight reservation over the move towards taught content for PhD candidates in the form of research skills training. there's just a slight danger of "bloatware teaching" - rather like popular software that includes so many features that so many won't use, that we all end up having our time taken by sluggish systems. I do sometimes worry that institutions can fail to distinguish between makework (or 'fakework') and real work. Meeting peers (at one's own institution or at conferences) seems more valuable, as DL says

Don, research courses could be mainly for practical purposes, just like information booklets about academic programs distributed to prospective students - a bit of "fluff", rather than with the aim of providing greater understanding of universities or about doing research such as "how the power structures work, the historical structural and personnel changes and disagreements which have led to the current setup, where invisible walls and little empires might be run into (and why), the machinations of funding, and so on." I'm not sure how much of this PhD students in the UK have already had access to in their undergraduate years. Surely it's all part of a well-rounded education, to learn about different research methodologies regardless of whether one will be using them for one's own research. A students doesn't just learn one theoretical perspective and leave it at that. The idea is that they are exposed to as much of the literature as possible, isn't it, so they can decide what's the most valuable and what makes the most sense for the research they plan to do?

Quite ironically, the author's suggestions, in my view, are in fact the best symptoms of THE problem, namely, the excessive and increasing bureaucratization of postgraduate supervision. And you need look no further than the amount of edu-babble that litter the entire piece. In the end, you can have all the structures, portfolios of professional development, problem-based seminars, instant-messaging meetings, question-and-answer emails, portfolios of options, feedback loops, and institutional memories; but nothing, in my experience, can ever replace the good old research seminar programme where candidates are encouraged to think carefully about those very basic but key issues, such as their research problems/questions, literature review, appropriate methodologies, etc. Yet, this was not even alluded to in this article. And we wonder why so many candidates feel so "lost." Also, the author seems to be suggesting that every doctoral candidate necessarily has the potential to undertake and complete a PhD. While this is true of perhaps most candidates, I have met (but thankfully never personally supervised) some who just did not have what it takes to do so. In some cases, it was not that they lacked the necessary intellectual capacity; it was that they underestimated the nature of the task, and/or were simply unwilling to learn.

To DL: Great post!

Thank god the outdated AKPAN wasn't my supervisor - this complete lack of understanding and 'hope' that being a throughly good chap is good enough to supervise students is incredibly outdated. The last sentence shows how bloody useless he/she is, but the disregard for the step-up in professionalism needed is astonishing - yes education used to be a massive privilege for both practitioners and students, but it now requires people to be accountable and work for that privilege. Moaning about something because you feel it is annoying is NOT the same as being right about it being wrong - many professors make this mistake.. they feel annoyed, so they THINK their 'what is appropriate' antennae are twitching, but what is twitching is their 'can't be bothered with that' antennae. Your last sentence illusttrates your naivity and poor teaching. When I joined the Army, 16 year olds were doing tasks of a much greater importance, much greater unknown and huge risks. Were they left to flounder and blames for 'underestimating the task'? No. They were told their boundaries and the nature of the task was explained to them consistently and constantly. When they had gaps in their learning, this wa acknowledged and they got extra training, when they didn't have the capacity to learn, they were told how to learn, when their skills faded because of laziness, naturla wastage or lack of practice, they were given refresher training, when they didn't step up to the mark, people told them. Sergeants get paid for that constant vigilance. Academics get paid a lot more. Guess who I would rather take me through a PHD. SOmeone who kept me at it, who I could go to for training, who recorded my development and rewarded me for it, who put me on focussed and targetted training, who tested my skills and let me know when they were lacking, or some lazy self-satisfied public sector fat cat who blames his subordinateds for his inanbility to get off his arse??

I think that Tara Brabazon, author of this article and currently prof at Brighton University, but educated in Australia, may not be altogether too familiar with the British university system, especially with how doctoral students fare. One can see the lack of appreciation of learning how to do research properly in the UK, just by reading some of the comments. Is there any respect for the PhD program, by the students and by the profs/staff themselves? I gather this article is in part a response to the previous THE article about Richard Sheridan, who did his PhD at Brighton, but I question how effective the ideas would be, if put into practice. From comments here and from the article on Rick Sheridan's experience one would have to wonder if the UK PhD is just a joke, mainly a way for the middle classes to lay claim to their traditional elitist heritage, as well as give a little back to some of the nations Britain pillaged during her more powerful years. And what are the other problems faced by academia? Well, for one, was Akpan right in saying that "it was not that they lacked the necessary intellectual capacity; it was that they underestimated the nature of the task, and/or were simply unwilling to learn." What of today's younger generation? How many find that there is an unwillingness to listen and learn, or to do the work, but a sense in each of them that they already know, or is it that this is the generation raised with the idea of relativity, meaning to their undiscerning minds that anything goes, whatever they believe must be right - in fact, that they know better. I agree that further bureaucratization of the PhD process is not the answer, though with professors willing to take advantage of the power at their disposal yet not willing to take responsibility for their errors or poor judgement, I don't know how solutions could start to be found.

This is the article about the PhD student: US scholar damns UK PhDs after 'regrettable experience' 14 May 2009 By John Gill http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=406519

I'm one of the 'failed' PhD students this article is addressing. I submitted my dissertation (to Oxford University) after 8 years of work, and it was basically failed at the viva - I was given substantial rewrites to do within a year. That was 8 months ago and I've not even looked at it since then, so it will be a failed dissertation (even if I did re-submit, I owe Oxford £18,000, which I've no hope of paying, so my degree would never be officially awarded) and 12 years of work towards an academic career are wasted. I started the PhD with fistfuls of scholarships and a stellar academic career up to that point, and I was handpicked by a world-famous professor to join one of the most prestigious research teams in my discipline; so no, it wasn't obvious that I 'wasn't up to it'. I have a book-length rant about all of this, but the main reason was so basic - appallingly poor supervision. Unfortunately a lot of people at Oxford are of the AKPAN persuasion. My initial supervisor left the university at the end of my first year, and the way I found out about his imminent departure was through casual gossip - he never even told me he was thinking of leaving. I was inherited by his temporary replacement, a new PhD younger than me who knew nothing about my area. This man was let go after 2 years, and I was told to knock on the door of his replacement, yet another man not in my field. My protests led to the university appointing an advisor (who actually did know a little about my topic) from another institution, who gave me 12 months of sporadic support before ditching me via an email to my supervisor (not discussing this with me at all). If a prestigious UK university can't even get Item One of postgarduate education right, let alone all of the marvelous ideas presented in this article, then postgraduate work in the UK is obviously a poor investment.

This is shocking, and though I work in an institution that has many more safeguards, I can't say for sure that is doesn't happen here, but I do agree that I have met academics who are of the 'thoroughly good chap' variety - even some who made mistakes throughout their teaching and failed to deliver on project after project - yet still were under a powerful delusion that they were one of the best supervisors and teachers a student could ever have. I feel for you Marketa, most especially because my UG research project was managed similarly - a supervisor innappropriate to my topic, who then had a nervous breakdown (I had two or three meetings with him where he sat silently at his desk then seemed surprised that I was there and asked me to leave), I then got someone in my project area who refused to tell me what was expected of a dissertation, who at turns criticised my work for being directionless, or praised it for being 'really excellent you have a lot of stuff there' when I reminded her of my title with 2 months to go she said 'that's not a dissertation project' but refused to tell me why, what she meant by that or even give an example of what she thought an appropriate title/project goal was. Her opinion was 'its your project not mine' she then refused to meet with me and at the last minute I changed both dissertation topic and supervisor and did a completely new piece of less ambitious work. That stage of my education messed up the next 10 years of my career and made me feel as though despite what I had thought about myself I must actually be a weak performer. Its only now working in HE that I realise how poor that experience was. As a young person managing my first real research project, I was totally abandoned by people getting paid a good salary to make sure I learnt from the experience, and yet instead of that responsibility being placed on them it was burdened on me - I took unambitious jobs, lost girlfriends and suffered from a lower than average income and am still playing catch up with people who are less able than I am as a result. Prior to this experience I was a prize-winning (though admittedly slightly erratic) student, afterwards I felt grateful to get each job I had. I am partly grateful for this experience as it has taught me not to be afraid to criticise a bloody useless academic on the things they are useless on, nor to fight the university I work for on a student's behalf if necessary. I have done this, and some of the people I have stood up openly for and said 'that's unacceptable' to them have gained enough strength even from that statement being made to kick their supervisor's ass themselves. The horrible and shameful tactic that weak academics use of blaming the individual, isolating them and ignoring them, then further blaming them is straight out of the handbook of deep-seated psychological bullying - in this case probably either because seeing the student reminds them of how they have failed to supervise effectively, or because of jealousy of their freedom, stage of life or ability, or even trying to take revenge for their own poor supervision (the 'I had it hard, now you have it hard' mentality (that the poor teacher I used above used to use to hide his errors 'what do you want me to do? make it easy?;) IO don't know what I am going to do about my example, but Marketa, you should think about writing this down and sending it in - if only to get your £18K waived and your mind at rest. I am sure Oxford will pretend that 'with its reputation' none of that can be true, but if there's one thing I hate its people in authority using their authority to hide incompetence and criminality - if a plumber charged you for replumbing your house and didn't do it he is a rogue trader and can be banned from operating again. If a public school educated avoids his/her responsibilities its the students fault? Not at all - have some integrity and if you can't be trusted to have that - out on your ear.

Oops.. some of that last sentence got written over! That should be 'Not at all. Marketa be proud that you worked hard, and academics (hopefully marketa's supervisor) have some intergrity, and if you can't be trusted to have that - out on your ear. (and also 'you certainly ain't a 'throughly good chap'!)

TO MARKETA: Believe it or not, I do actually have a lot of genuine sympathy for people in your situation. And it is quite obvious, from what you have described, that your supervision was not what it could have been, to say the least. As it happens, I do have a very dear friend whose experience was remarkably similar to yours - the only difference being that she was not at Oxbridge or even at the plateglass institutions. On the contrary, she was at one of the post-1992 institutions, where there seemed to be a fanatical obsession with the kinds of "processes" and "structures" that Prof Brabazon prescribes in her piece. So why, in her case, did these systems prove so disatrously ineffective, you might ask? Well, astonishingly, she was assigned, as you were, to successive supervisors who knew nothing about her area. Every protest she lodged merely received a response reminding her of the "robust institutional structures" that exist, and the fact that her supervision had met with strict regulatory requirements. So, what your regrettable experience, and my friend's demonstrate, in my view, is that systems or structures (or lack thereof) do not necessarily lead to success or failure. What matters, it seems, is that candidates are made aware of what doing a PhD entails from the very outset. And, at the risk of sounding rather cruel in light of your experience, this should involve highlighting the significant amount of PERSONAL responsibility involved in the process. But I realize that even this would not necessarily guarantee success if the new canditate is supervised by someone who is not an expert in his/her area - even if in a fairly broad sense.