Postgrad supervisors: what are your views?

Dostoevsky

I'd just like to get feedback on what everybody thinks, or thought, of their supervisor(s) in UCD.

I know there will be many very strong opinions about this.

Were they responsive to your needs?

Did they give insightful feedback?

Did they motivate you?

Did they meet you enough?

Were they difficult to get in contact and get time with?

Did they defend your work and write the necessary recommendations for scholarships etc?

Did they review your work properly and give you comprehensive and thoughtful corrections which improved your work?

Did you feel that you were a nuisance and that they only cared about publishing their own work?

Do you feel you got bad value/service for the fees you paid?

What changes do you feel should be made to the supervisor-student system?

Dostoevsky

He/She could not have been/be worse

You can vote for several options above, by the way.

Dostoevsky

He/She could not have been/be worse

Me? Well, I found the entire process leading up to the viva to be utterly unprofessional. It is the most secretive event I have ever been to. It seems to be, still, without rules - and where "guidelines" exist they are ignored in order to suit the publishing etc requirements of the attendees at the viva; for example, I was waiting long past the 2 month limit which the university officially set between my submission and my viva. I entered that room with no idea of what to expect except that two hours before the meeting I was told there would be an extra two people in the interview. That was wrong, wrong and wrong again. Anytime I had asked in the preceding months what to expect in the viva my supervisor had told me he had nothing to do with it and that it was an administrative issue. Subsequent to that I didn't know who to speak with. Finally, I followed the university rules and talked to the head of school and he told me my supervisor was responsible for organising the viva.

We, as students, have no real comeback. Who is going to write our references if we complain about the way we have been treated? I spent tens of thousands of euro on my postgrad education and I feel I got very bad service for it, most particularly in the closing months when I needed information badly. It was abysmal, really abysmal. I was awarded my doctorate OK, but I never felt so alone. I had to hold back the tears two hours before it started when I was told there would be two additional people in the viva. To spring that on me two hours beforehand is unforgivable.

Universities are research centres. Students are secondary considerations in the real day-to-day life: their principal function is to bring in fees to pay academic researchers. Let nobody be under any illusions about that.

avalon68

He/She was/is doing his/her best

maybe this would be better in the postgrad forum? It would be interesting to get a wide range of opinions on the quality of supervision at the postgrad level.....

avalon68

He/She was/is doing his/her best

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Who is going to write our references if we complain about the way we have been treated?

This really is a huge problem, and it is why the system never changes. I feel if PhD programmes were more structured,with regular meetings of thesis commitees and students that "issues" could be more efficiently dealt with.

graduate

We, as students, have no real comeback. Who is going to write our references if we complain about the way we have been treated? I spent tens of thousands of euro on my postgrad education and I feel I got very bad service for it, most particularly in the closing months when I needed information badly. It was abysmal, really abysmal. I was awarded my doctorate OK, but I never felt so alone. I had to hold back the tears two hours before it started when I was told there would be two additional people in the viva. To spring that on me two hours beforehand is unforgivable.

To say that you were a student is accurate, but you should at that stage have little in common with typical students. You are seeking a doctorate and validation as an independent researcher. You are seeking to be recognised as the authority in the area of your PhD. The number of people in the room is neither here nor there, you are in charge of your work and should be expected to answer questions from any source.

Now you may or may not have a case about the quality of supervision, but complaining about a viva in this way suggests that you yourself did not believe in your own PhD.

As for the 2 month guideline between submission and viva this can only be guideline as it requires the attendance of externs, usually international ones, whose attendance is difficult to arrange.

avalon68

He/She was/is doing his/her best

graduate wrote: »

You are seeking a doctorate and validation as an independent researcher. You are seeking to be recognised as the authority in the area of your PhD. The number of people in the room is neither here nor there, you are in charge of your work and should be expected to answer questions from any source.

Personally I wouldnt have a problem with the number of people in the room, but, I believe the point the OP is making is that they should have been informed of who would be attending. I think that would simply be a professional courtesy. Its not as if these extra people just decided to drop by on the off chance that a viva in their area of research would be on :rolleyes: A simple cc of the invite email to the OP would have been sufficient.

Dostoevsky

He/She could not have been/be worse

graduate wrote: »

To say that you were a student is accurate, but you should at that stage have little in common with typical students.

As long as I am paying my student fees, I am a student. I, therefore, deserve a service commensurate with that fee-paying status from the institution which is receiving my fees. To suggest that I should pay those fees and not expect any service for them is preposterous.

graduate wrote: »

The number of people in the room is neither here nor there, you are in charge of your work and should be expected to answer questions from any source.

The number of people in the room matters hugely, almost as much as who those people are. Had you any street smarts about the agendas and prejudices which all supervisors bring into a viva voce you would not say something as naïve as this. In my case the situation was worse as my initial choice for external examiner did not materialise. Consequently, by the time of the viva I had no say in any of the people in that room. Indeed, I had argued against all of them in my thesis, a fact which made my viva considerably longer. This matters, this so obviously matters. Nobody with any experience of real life academia would contend otherwise.

A good supervisor is meant to ensure that such a situation does not arise. This is incontrovertibly part of his/her remit.

graduate wrote: »

Now you may or may not have a case about the quality of supervision, but complaining about a viva in this way suggests that you yourself did not believe in your own PhD.

Absolute nonsense. I could have taken on anybody in the entire field. The fact that I like to prepare for who I am battling against does not "suggest" I do not believe in my work. It merely acknowledges that as a young researcher I need time to prepare to take on guys who have been in the field for 30 or 40 years and whose views wield infinitely more power than mine. It is a matter of fairness that I have this time. They, clearly, knew my work before I had a chance to familiarise myself with any of their potential arguments against my work.

graduate wrote: »

As for the 2 month guideline between submission and viva this can only be guideline as it requires the attendance of externs, usually international ones, whose attendance is difficult to arrange.

More rubbish. None of my examiners came from an international destination so I'd like to see a reference for your "usually" claim.



You, evidently, have no experience of the entire viva process.

Dostoevsky

He/She could not have been/be worse

avalon68 wrote: »

Personally I wouldnt have a problem with the number of people in the room, but, I believe the point the OP is making is that they should have been informed of who would be attending. I think that would simply be a professional courtesy. Its not as if these extra people just decided to drop by on the off chance that a viva in their area of research would be on :rolleyes: A simple cc of the invite email to the OP would have been sufficient.

When you have put years into something, you want clarity about the next step. I did not have that clarity. That is my problem. I could honestly have taken on all the people in my field - and in my viva, as it happened, I ended up taking on a good representative sample of those who would have been opposed to my general thesis. Nevertheless, I deserve a right to prepare for that. I deserve a right to prepare for my defence.

It is well known that people have failed vivas simply because their work has clashed with one of their appointed external examiners. My thesis could easily have ended up like that, particularly because I argued against a major idea of one of the examiners; I found out that the examiner in question was to be in my viva after I had submitted. The viva can be a very political process. In fact, even when it goes your way it can be very political. That is the sad truth of things.

Had I been properly informed I could have prepared accordingly.

Pride Fighter

I was/am disappointed with my supervisor

3 weeks into my MA and I am enjoying it. Probably differs for the PhD students though.

avalon68

He/She was/is doing his/her best

Dostoevsky wrote: »

When you have put years into something, you want clarity about the next step. I did not have that clarity. That is my problem. I could honestly have taken on all the people in my field - and in my viva, as it happened, I ended up taking on a good representative sample of those who would have been opposed to my general thesis. Nevertheless, I deserve a right to prepare for that. I deserve a right to prepare for my defence.

It is well known that people have failed vivas simply because their work has clashed with one of their appointed external examiners. My thesis could easily have ended up like that, particularly because I argued against a major idea of one of the examiners; I found out that the examiner in question was to be in my viva after I had submitted. The viva can be a very political process. In fact, even when it goes your way it can be very political. That is the sad truth of things.

Had I been properly informed I could have prepared accordingly.

I was agreeing with you!