Problems with PhD supervisor

[Jack Bauer]

It's just nonsense.

Its not entirely. It as much a matter of career progression, but most euro and American PhDs are more advanced than UK PhDs. That is not to say UK PhDs are bad, they are just quicker and as such American post docs tend to have more experience and more responsibility than UK post docs.

A quote from Science (the journal for anyone who dies not know)

". "American scientists finish their Ph.D. having slogged through a longer process" than "people who come from countries where the Ph.D. is very fast," he says. Undergraduate courses are also longer in the United States. The result is that new American postdocs are often older and more experienced than their Europeans peers. Consequently, American PIs may assign more responsibility than fresh European Ph.D.s are comfortable with at first. "

Also, I can confirm having talked to many people who did post docs and PhD in the US that this is the case. For example, I guy I worked with post doced in Germany for a year. He was a very good chemist, but still maintained that the PhD students there were far more advanced than the UK PhD students and were much old and had to work for longer.



As above, I am not saying UK PhDs are bad, but at a guess, due to the time spend a UK PhD with a year or two post doc experience is probably more like a US PhD.

 

[Jack Bauer]

double post

 

[D.P.]

Sorry, only just saw this post after someone else quoted it.

There's a difference between 'a lot' and 'absolute'. If you are willing to take the risk then you can submit when you want. The department will likely just say "Your supervisor disagrees so if you fail you will not get a second chance".

No, they absolutely CANNOT do that in the UK. Most supervisors don't even go because it's pointless, as they CANNOT say anything without the external examiner's permission and even then it's only for non-technical things like who authored what with who or when you went to some conference, irrelevant details like that.

If you're asked a technical question you should be able to answer but can't your supervisor absolutely cannot answer it for you. It's your viva, not theirs. Them being able to answer a question pertaining to your research has absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion. They also cannot ask you technical questions, they are to be silent. Their job is to have pushed you and tested you before you get to the viva so you are ready for it.

And where are you getting 'most questions have political backgrounds'? Perhaps in your area or perhaps in a politics PhD but come on, do you really think that's a universally true statement? Most of my questions were about my research area, some tiny obscure area of non-geometric flux compactifications in Type II string dualities. Nothing political there. The external examiner opened the thesis, turned to chapter X and said "On page Y you said [something]. Explain how you arrived at that conclusion". Nothing political in what was essentially a mathematics PhD. Hundreds of pages of text and equations (and one diagram), all technical and nothing at all 'political'.

Please stop making blanket statements based on your experience. How many times do you need to be given counter examples to things you assert are universally true?

I think you are completely misunderstanding what I said.
I never said most questions are political or that your supervisor should or can answer technical questions. What I said was that supervisors are useful to answering political questions which are beyond the scope for your thesis. If your supervisor is answering technical questions then you will probably fail.


And I am not making blanket statements base on my experience. i am making statements based on the experiences of dozens of friends and colleagues, countless discussions at conferences, and serious research done on line, and professional help that I sought due in part to difficulties with my professor - yes some of what I am stating here comes form a professional advisor that I had a session with

 

[D.P.]

Its not entirely. It as much a matter of career progression, but most euro and American PhDs are more advanced than UK PhDs. That is not to say UK PhDs are bad, they are just quicker and as such American post docs tend to have more experience and more responsibly than UK post docs.

A quote from Science (the journal for anyone who dies not know)

". "American scientists finish their Ph.D. having slogged through a longer process" than "people who come from countries where the Ph.D. is very fast," he says. Undergraduate courses are also longer in the United States. The result is that new American postdocs are often older and more experienced than their Europeans peers. Consequently, American PIs may assign more responsibility than fresh European Ph.D.s are comfortable with at first. "

Also, I can confirm having talked to many people who did post docs and PhD in the US that this is the case. For example, I guy I worked with post doced in Germany for a year. He was a very good chemist, but still maintained that the PhD students there were far more advanced than the UK PhD students and were much old and had to work for longer.



As above, I am not saying UK PhDs are bad, but at a guess, due to the time spend a UK PhD with a year or two post doc experience is probably more like a US PhD.

exactly

and some of the differences are very clear. How many of you who have done a PhD in the UK know how to write a patent, funding proposal for multi million european and American projects, have reviewed dozens of papers for journals, organised conferences and symposiums, have have supervised master and undergrad student projects, have taught under and post graduate lectures, co-edited special issues of journals, co-authored books and textbooks, hosted research seminars, done accounting for multi-million euro projects, helped developed undergrad and master courses and slides, contributed significant research to areas outside of your thesis, organized media groups, etc., etc.

The UK PHD students I have spoken to have never even supervised a masters project or had any experience writing project proposal beyond trying to get their own funding. how are you going to become a professor if you have no experience in wring project proposals?



And as I said, many European and American PhDs involve research where it might take 4-6 years just to get the data needed. In the UK this is obviously impossible yet in some fields this is the standard research approach.