I will be honest and say that after having marked countless essays and other pieces of work, I have been tempted on numerous occasions to write similar negative comments out of frustration. It doesn't seem to matter how much extra support I provide students, they make the same mistakes I repeatedly tell them not to. This is then exasperated when they refuse to utilise the extra support (such as essay writing and referencing guides I've prepared for them) and then get angry about 'losing marks' because "I didn't tell them they shouldn't do that" despite it being Academic Writing 101.

But I digress. Some markers aren't very good at 'sugar-coating' their thoughts on undergraduate work (I'm assuming you are an undergraduate?). While being more nice and helpful is generally a better way to go (I always ensure my feedback is constructed in a way that is not negative, and I would never write a comment like that!) you as a student need to prepare yourself for the different types of feedback you'll receive, some which will not be covered in honey and sugar.

Many markers are also subjected to quite negative feedback on their own work, and they learn to provide feedback in this manner. So if they have a PhD supervisor who uses very frank and direct comments such as the one above, they themselves might utilise this method in their own marking, believing this to be the appropriate way to go.

Whether you continue in Academia or not, you'll receive feedback in a variety of forms, some which you'll find overly negative, and some positive. While I think it's better to have more positive feedback, we often only point out the bad in work and never the good. When you enter industry (or stay in Academia) you'll encounter these ranges, and will need to learn to 'build a hard shell' and adjust yourself accordingly.

I will say though that the comment "Sounds like bullshit" is out of line and not appropriate for undergraduate work.

Do the corrections.

If you've spent many years of study to get to a point where you now have modest corrections, just do them, either through addressing them critically or adding sections in as requested.

You can absolutely disagree with corrections as well, which is what I did for a couple on a similar basis, that they didn't fit the PhD. The point is to get you to consider them and reflect back. Corrections test your ability to review and take on critical feedback and there will be points that you might not agree with, so you can maintain your position. PhD corrections prepare you for the world of peer-review.

The PhD is not going to be your best work, so I would strongly advise against fighting against corrections that will ultimately, have to be addressed and done, and will extend the period of study even longer than what you've already put in. In the long run, these corrections won't have a significant impact on your continued work.

Remember your PhD is a period of study, and the outcome, while important, will not be that important 3 years down the road. It's meant to train you into academia, but it is not, in itself, a work of genius. The purpose of examination is to determine whether or not you are ready to enter Academia. While you become a subject expert, this is not the only goal of a PhD.

I think I've said this elsewhere on this forum, but many and I mean many academics look back on their PhD thesis 5 years or longer and will laugh about it, or consider it a piece of crap in comparison to what they are doing now. I am in no way suggesting that you shouldn't be proud of your hard work, you should be! What I am saying is that fighting corrections on something like a PhD will not benefit you in any way.

When you go to publish which is the important part, you do not have to include the corrections.

Hey anon,

One of the issues might be that you keep going to a counsellor, as opposed to someone whose more qualified to handle your situation. If you go to your GP and get a referral, they'll refer you to a psychologist (and in dire circumstances, a psychiatrist). Counsellors are not generally trained to handle long-term treatment for mental health, and should be referring their clients to professionals. University counsellors are really only there for short term issues like assessment anxiety, and are supposed to be able to direct students to appropriate services.

Counsellors are great for short term (i.e. one or two sessions), but for long-term issues you're better off with a qualified and accredited psychologist, who will work with you closely on retraining exercises and coping methods. Many psychologists have MAs or PhDs and some have experience in Academia through teaching and research as well as private practice, so they have a much more intimate understanding of what you go through than a general charity counsellor.

I also disagree with that counsellor's comment about you being your own counsellor, that was unprofessional of her, and I wouldn't make excuses for how you act if your mental state is unwell/not where it should be. Mental health can and does severely impact on how we interact and behave around people. She should have referred you properly to a psychologist who is much more qualified and trained to work with people with mental health issues.

I've linked you to a pdf (sorry it's based in a gender/sex premise but gives an overall idea) of the differences between counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists

http://gendercentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/psych-counselors-whats-the-difference-update-2014.pdf

Hey Anon,

I'm not sure how it works at your university, but I know at mine, university counsellors only offer a few sessions and then are expected to refer you to a private psychologist if you need additional support.

I saw a psychologist for about 3 years off and on during my PhD study, but this was a private one that I claimed rebate back on. You might be better to go to your GP and get a referral for one not associated with your university. This way, you might be getting the support you actually need and can see this person for more sessions than what the university will provide.

You might have to pay but I can tell you it's worth the money, at least for me it was, but I was referred to a good psychologist who took the time to work with me and didn't write me off after each session, which I find university counsellors might (MIGHT) do. Instead, she gave me worksheets and other activities to complete, and it was a progress based style, not "see someone for x amount of time and then be better after coming out,' Real therapy doesn't work like that, but I find in general, the uni systems in place for this can be like that.

:( I'm sorry to hear this. Unfortunately, a lot of jobs happen in this manner (myself included).

Mathcomp

While various individuals will disagree, in the process of being a new academic applying for jobs, it might be worth also putting papers that are 75%-85% ready to go (where if asked, you could supply a draft of this paper) to help strengthen your CV.

http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34901/indicate-journal-name-for-under-review-and-accepted-in-press-publications-on

The link above might be a useful read.

One thing to keep in mind is that disciplines and publication rates will vary. For example, in qualitative social science where your project is your own, you're not likely to have a heap of publications at the end of your PhD; whereas in a hard science field, you might be listed on a number of works as coauthor of some sort and therefore have more.

It can be hard though when you compare yourself to others, I do this all the time and panic about my lack of publications. But I also have to remember that I've only just finished the PhD whereas many of these others that I'm comparing myself to have been in the field for a while now.

Do not fool yourself into thinking that this man or another member of faculty (or another postgraduate student who might suspect what's going on) won't jump at the chance to report what's happening. Academia is very competitive and not everyone is nice or friendly/wouldn't jump at the chance to ruin the career prospects of someone else.

While you might be under the impression that this is only between the two of you, the reality is that it may very well not be. As there is an email, there is solid evidence on the email servers of the university to support a third party's suspicions. IT can access these if needed (my partner works in IT and is often asked to restore deleted emails from employees who have been fired etc).

As someone working full time in a university post PhD and having to work with a variety of policies, I can tell you this:

I'm not trying to scare you or make you feel bad, I am trying to help you in the case that you are reported for inappropriate behaviour. You keep saying that this is a complicated situation and while it is, you have to consider how the university is going to view this. They are only going to see an inappropriate relationship between a supervisor and student, and they are going to use written evidence to support this.

As myself and others have suggested, you need to:

Get away from this man, he is toxic to your academic career if this is the path you want

Take a step back, read your university policies, consider whether there is a chance someone else could be partial to what is occurring and may have reasons to report this

Consider whether this man might report you to save his own ass.

I do not think you realise the severity of your situation should your supervisor or someone else decide to report you.

It is not relevant that your supervisor's wife has passed away or that he approached your prior to enrolling, or that he has children, or that it is as you claim 'a complicated situation.' The ONLY thing that is relevant is that:

You are a student.

Your professor is faculty.

These two roles alone, without taking into consideration ANY other circumstances are grounds for breach of unprofessional conduct, which is grounds for dismissal from the university and detrimental to your career.

Both you and your supervisor are breaching professional codes of conduct. While I don't know what university you attend, I can assume that the most universities will have similar policies in place regarding professional conduct between faculty and students.

For the sake of your career, you need to stop making excuses both for yourself and your professor. You need to take a hard dose of reality and realise that you are jeopordising your academic career for a man who may or may not be interested in you.

As a student, you hold less leverage than your professor. Because you've declared your feelings in written communication, which he has a copy of, and is saved on university system servers, should this be brought to the attention of the university, you may lose your place and face severe repercussions because it will come across that YOU, not your professor, has instigated an inappropriate relationship (regardless of whether or not he instigated it first). If you do not have ANY written or solid evidence of him approaching you in questionable ways then you are pretty much f*cked if he reports you.

To reiterate, You.Are.A.Student even though you are pursuing a PhD. I cannot stress that enough. There are no 'complicated' situations when it comes to potentially romantic supervisor/student relationships in the eyes of the university.

Part 2:

He may have grounds to approach a university service to file a complaint/grievance against you under a policy such as Inappropriate Conduct by Students (#5 in the policy link I've provided) as he has solid evidence:

-Unprofessional or inappropriate conduct towards a staff member that is initiated by a student is not acceptable.

-Unprofessional or inappropriate conduct by a student is likely to breach the ‘Discipline (Student) – Guidelines’, ‘Statute 4.1 – Discipline’ and other university policies and procedures. Grievance procedures apply, depending on the nature of the conduct.

-A staff member who needs assistance in responding to unprofessional or inappropriate conduct that is initiated by a student should speak to his or her performance supervisor, the Head of the School, the Dean or the Divisional Director, Monash HR, Equity and Diversity, or one of the Advisers listed in the Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Grievance Procedures.

I don't know what the whole circumstance of this situation is, reading your past posts indicated that perhaps he had an interest, but it appears that maybe this is one-sided on your account (again, this is just based on what I've read).

Basically, my advice is that unless you feel that an inappropriate relationship has developed/instigated by him and have solid evidence to support this claim (in which I would encourage you to report to your university a breach of conduct) you need to distance yourself and rethink your career movement & strategy if it is dependent on him.

This is not a small issue, it is actually a big deal and unless dealt with professionally, you can lose your place in the university program or he can lose his job. In either situation, both of your careers have the potential to be severely damaged, with yours ending before it even started.

Part I:

Okay, so here's the thing (and you won't like this response, but it needs to be said).

You've put your supervisor in a very awkward position and there are a number of repercussions that can occur both for his career and yours. By telling him your feelings (and it appears that you were hoping that his would be mutual) you've altered the relationship to one that has implications of student/teacher romance, which is either illegal, frowned upon or against university policy depending on the university and can be grounds for dismissal, both from your program, and for him as a employee.

Whether or not you're working with this man is irrelevant, you are a student and he is faculty, this automatically makes this (potential) relationship fall under the above category.

It is absolutely an issue because and I repeat, You Are A Student, He Is Faculty and this is considered a breach of professional conduct.

He did the absolute right thing by making it clear that this makes him uncomfortable and that professional boundaries have to be maintained, otherwise any and I mean ANY indication that he has mutual feelings that can be backed up by evidence (such as an email) can work against him in a case of a breach of conduct. He has NO obligation to discuss with you these feelings other than completely saying "We cannot work together".

In doing this, he is protecting himself as an employee of the university, but also protecting you. This kind of behaviour can be detrimental to a career in Academia.

I've linked a copy of a conduct and compliance page from my university for you to read to get an understanding, though I'm sure your home university has something similar to this effect (http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/workplace-policy/conduct-compliance/staff-student-relationships.html)

Hi Nesrine,

It's a hard call really. To give an example, I submitted in September 2014, right on my 3.5 year mark. I received my results at the end of November, 2014 with very minor corrections, completed these and resubmitted by December 13th, and had my thesis officially ratified December 23rd. So while I can say the initial process only took 3.5 years, the actual process of examination & corrections took longer, rounded out to under 4 years.

Technically, you are finished the thesis once it has been ratified (so all corrections approved, hard-copies resubmitted to be housed at the school etc).

Ian mentioned that the letter gives you the title, that's dependent on country. Here in Australia, you are not a doctor until you graduate officially at the ceremony, where you are 'hatted' (unless you opt for not going, in which case you wait for the testamur to come in the mail). While I'm 'technically' a doctor and have been since the thesis ratification in December where my letter indicates that I've completed, I have to wait until May to actually use the title in an official capacity because that's when the next round of graduations are.

You won't be able to say you completed in 3.5 years but you can say you submitted. After all, we can say we've submitted an article for review, but we can't say it's an actual article until its published. Your thesis as submitted is not a completed work because it's under the examination (or 'review' stage) and susceptible to a fail or revise/resubmit.

As for your timeline, it's doable, but don't plan on it. There are a number of unknowns that will be completely out of your control, such as how long examination takes, or how long it takes to get your reports back, what your results will be and how long that will take, how long it'll take to get your corrections approved and then ratified etc.

There is never a 'right' time to have a kid as a woman. If you feel ready to have children, start having children.

Will this impact a career in Academia? Absolutely. Academia, like any other type of industry, is largely a man's game. You will still come up against the same obstacles that other women face once getting pregnant but many women in academia do have children and are successful in maintaining their careers.

There's no real right way to start to ensure security because unfortunately, the nature of having children today is still considered a liability for many businesses working withing a sexist model of employment practice.

During my PhD candidature, I joined a seminar (writing group) that was all about publishing. This not only included reviewing and writing work, but also at the start of each seminar, an overview of various topics around publishing, such as editorial practices, ethics etc.

One of the things that I learned (and can still recall) is that for an academic career, sometimes you have to write and publish things you have no interest in to keep yourself going.

You might hate your topic, but right now, your PhD thesis has content that has been peer reviewed countless times by your supervisor(ers) and your examiners. You have a goldmine of stuff you can take and draft into journal articles, you’ve already done all the research, the analysis etc, now it’s taking that and rewriting it to suit the journal you are targeting. This might mean some tweaks, or complete changes. It may not take you nearly as long as it could to draft stuff from scratch.

In today’s academic market, it’s highly competitive. Your discipline/academic level will be a determining factor in how many publications you should have per year (at my Uni, as a level A academic I am expected to strive for level B aspirations, with 1.9 publications a year with an aspiration for 2.5, and at least 0.5 of those in quality, I’ve got no idea how these decimal points work but this is just an example). But you might not get even looked at if your contenders have at least one or two publications in quality/high impact journals as sole or co-authors.

If you want to get your foot in the door, you want to get some publications out. So take that thesis topic of yours (I know you are sick of it) and get to work in getting those articles drafted. See if you can find a writing group to utilise some peer support for reviewing.

Grumpy, that's actually really, really good, even if its coauthored for coming out of a PhD.

I only have one publication in total. I'm a sole author to it though, (no coauthors yet but working on it) but landed a teaching/research role (and am currently drafting thesis chapters into journal articles).

3 publications and 2 book chapters, that's great! The only thing that brings you down is:

1) Whether those publications are in quality/high impact journals
2) Whether the book chapters are published through quality academic presses
3) If people you are competing against have a high number of sole-authored works.

Social science is a difficult discipline to publish in as sole authors (though also expected), while others like hard sciences, students have a multitude of opportunities to be listed as authors due to their involvement in the research. It can also be difficult if you are a qualitative researcher doing your own stuff.

Here's the thing that I think a number students sometimes forget while studying for their masters/phd.

1) Your supervisor may never be 100% on your topic, but rather, will be 100% as to what makes for a good/sound argument (generally, not always the case). Not having a subject expert in your specific topic isn't actually disadvantageous. A good supervisor is one who can assess your work for its arguments, it's ability to provide evidence, it's reasoning and its writing. Neither of my supervisors were topic experts in my explicit field, but were familiar enough to provide sound supervision. I passed first go with minor changes that took like 2-3 days to do, assessed by examiners who were sound experts in my field of study.

2) The feedback you get will often sound harsh, not because your work is bad, but because academics generally do not point out what is good, only what needs work. What ever your supervisor points out, address it. This is important, they've highlighted something that could do with more fine-tuning, or reworking to make your thesis stronger. Your PhD is NOT the sum of your self-worth, you must learn to separate yourself from your work, something that of course, is very VERY difficult to do. But this is an important thing to do, because if/when you start publishing, you'll need to be able to incorporate and assess the feedback from peer reviewers. Nothing you do will be perfect, academia is about revision, again, and again, and again. I have chapters I revised maybe 10-12 times and papers that have undergone multiple revisions before publication.

3) As marasp suggests, you will not see direct results from the feedback. The PhD is first and foremost, a learning process. In a few years time when you reflect back, you will see how much you've learned and how much more advanced your writing and your critical thinking are.

4) You have to provide justification in Academia. Learn to 'over-justify.'

Hey there,

As others have suggested, it is probably better to be closer rather than further from the uni if you want to get involved with events/professional development.

I commuted throughout the PhD as I lived quite a ways a way (well 35 minutes if using toll roads, but with traffic it could be anywhere from 1-2 hour drive).

However, I'm quite introverted and had a close circle of non-academic friends that I enjoyed being with when I wasn't working on my studies, so this suited me as I worked mostly from home. I was also doing volunteer work outside of uni, so didn't become completely embedded in the university lifestyle.

I think this was helpful, for me at least, to maintain some distance from academia/be able to separate myself from it in my personal life. It also meant that I didn't feel the strong 'competitiveness'/comparing myself to other students that may have impacted my self-esteem and productivity. By working on my own (social science) I was able to concentrate and get high-quality work done.

This didn't impact me too negatively. I finished within my allotted funding period of 3.5 years and passed with a very strong result. I'm now working at this university on a full-time contract as an academic.

I still commute to this same uni for a full-time (contract) job 4 days a week and try to work from home 1 day. Because of traffic, I work very long days, I'm up at 5:30 and at my desk by 7am; leave around 4-4:30 and home by 5-630 depending on traffic.

Commuting does take its toll, I'm shattered at the end of each day, but because I go in most days, I can effectively 'leave my work there' which you can't do when you work from home. Unless its absolutely essential, I do not take my work home with me, which is doing wonders for my relationships :)