posted about 1 month ago
Quote From softykitty:
Thanks for sharing your experience, that's very encouraging. The problem is why they can make such conclusion if they had no absolute control on this matter. I'm just trying to understand the reason behind their behaviour. Why did they make their PhD student feel so bad? They wouldn't benefit anything from this. I'm not sure if I will file complaint later on because our school has quite bureaucratic system, which means the staff are always right and the student will be blamed for anything. The PhD coordinator in our school is not doing well with his own PhD student, but he is still in charge. The ball is always on their court, that's the sad truth.
PhD supervision can be one smart socially awkward person trying to guide another smart socially awkward person. That sounds like it can cause friction and it isn't always the supervisors fault.
A PhD should be awarded when someone writes a thesis on their work showcasing their accomplishment as independent researcher. The problem is "fuzzyness" on the standard of work and how independent you should be. Two smart socially awkward people may have different perspectives, standards and availability. That is why I always say you should choose the PhD on the project and the supervisor match.
Though on a side note - I was talking with an old school professor who is in 70s and he said PhD supervision has changed massively during his life. Reportedly after his first year of his PhD he would only meet his supervisor once every 2 months or so, just so the supervisor could check he was still studying. He also reportedly only had 1 major draft of his thesis before submission where the supervisor gave general comments on the content but nothing more. Back then it was expected that you learnt from other sources and not rely on your supervisor. I know things have changed but it does show that there is no clear right/wrong way and things are always changing.
