At university level shouldn't they get experts??

[nevereverever83]

Nearly posted this in AIBU but thought i'd get more careful and reasonable responses here... but my gut reaction is one of mild outrage!

My neice has just started her third (final) year at top 10 uni for her subject as has been assigned a supervisor for her dissertation project. All of her colleagues in the same subject have been appointed supervisors who are proper academics, some are proper Professors or even the Head of Department, but my neice is the only one in her year/subject who has been given a PhD student and she has never met or heard of this person before. Apparently the PhD student's research is closely related to what my neice wants write about in her dissertation (she only has a very vague idea at the moment) and nobody else in the department works on precisely that topic, but she says there are lots of other members of SENIOR and experienced staff who work on things that are quite close, and she even suggested a couple of them as potential supervisors for her dissertation.

Given that she's paying £9000 a year for this and this is her final year and most important piece of work, shouldn't she get to be supervised by a proper academic, not another student? I know sometimes lower level classes are taught by PhD students (and that's how they learn to teach) but a dissertation is such a big deal?

but a dissertation is such a big deal?

Not at undergraduate level. :)

Quite honestly, the PhD student is highly likely to value this supervisory role much more than any "proper" Professor, who will have much less time or inclination for close supervision, particularly of lowly undergraduate students. Let alone Heads of Department.

thanks everyone, this was illuminating i suppose.
I guess i just feel like -- why is she the only one getting a phd student when the others have more experienced (albeit perhaps more busy) tutors? And why this phd student but no others? If PhD student are more devoted, have more time, etc. surely LOTS of PhD students would be supervising dissertation. Yet only one is. So maybe it isn't a good thing? I must sound a bit silly really (i don't know anything about university and academics, you are all correct) but my neice really needs to get a 2.1 to get onto her preferred graduate scheme so she is anxious about having the best person to work on this dissertation with her. And if she does need references wouldnt they look better coming from someone senior (like a Head of Dept) rather than a PhD student? She isn't planning to do a masters

You said it yourself that this student is the closest, and probably the most knowleageable, in the chosen topic.

However, as it's a PhD student and probably on their first supervisory role, I'd expect your niece to have access to a co-supervisor as well.

On the other hand, and as others have pointed out, this PhD student may be very experienced. And they'll probably be more up to date than the Professors.

Still, students are given a range of supervisors. I'd look more at their track record in terms of support than their academic title. Some really are shitty supervisors.

It doesn't sound silly. A department might not have that many PhD students - one year, we only had one third-year - so it might be as simple as that.

Your niece ought to have someone who is her point of contact for all her academic studies, who she can raise concerns with. She might just want to keep in close touch with that person if she's worried. And she might want to read the guidelines for dissertations extra carefully. Then she'll have a good sense of whether or not she's getting what she should be from the supervisor.

Broadly, the supervisor isn't there to 'teach' but just to be an experienced sounding board about the topic. The basics about how to write a dissertation are things she should mostly know already (though it may not feel like that!) or things she can find out for herself.

And if she does need references wouldnt they look better coming from someone senior (like a Head of Dept) rather than a PhD student?

She isn't planning on doing a further degree so the only role of the reference is to confirm that there were no issues at university (plagiarism, dishonesty etc). No employer outside academia could care less from whom at the university this comes and nobody would care about detailed performance in a dissertation. It is usual to ask your tutor and one other person who taught you.

I'm really not sure why you keep mentioning heads of department. I think you really don't know how academia works relative to the business world because heads of department mostly take care of admin - they aren't more respected as academic references, even within academia. The most valued reference within academia would be from the academic most respected within the given research field. This is by means necessarily the most "senior" person in rank in the department.

I would also add that if your niece really needs a 2.1 it is up to her to put the work in to achieve that. A supervisor can provide guidance, but they are not there to provide all the answers and tell the student exactly what to do. With the introduction of tuition fees the self directed learning aspect of a university degree seems to have been lost by many

"I guess i just feel like -- why is she the only one getting a phd student when the others have more experienced (albeit perhaps more busy) tutors?"

As others have pointed out, a senior academic won't necessarily be the most experienced tutor in the particular field that is relevant to the dissertation. The PhD student may indeed be the world expert on that particular bit. Not all PhD students will be doing supervision (and often they work with a second supervisor); they will be selected as being particularly suited.

A supervisor, again as others have pointed out, is not a teacher: supervising a dissertation requires rather different skills. It's about making sure the student keeps on track with the writing process and develops the independent skills that a dissertation requires. That is why dissertation skills are so highly prized by employers: because they prove students have learnt to do independent work.

And finally, Head of Department is not the top ranking job at a department: it is an administrative job that academics (at least at my university) take it in turns to deal with. So there may well be a higher-ranking, more internationally renowned academic at the same department who either has already done their turn as HoD or hasn't done it yet or who may never be chosen to do it. It doesn't make them any less senior.

For my professional masters where by the time I graduated I was professional recognised (year of training, plus masters degree) the person I was given had a doctorate, was specialist senior lecturer, ex head of department and a professor.

They were assigned at the beginning of the masters. I'd checked the prospectus because this was an area I was keen to work in so needed someone decent to supervise me and it said it was a specialist area of research.

The man didn't have a clue. He'd last worked in industry over twenty years before, doing his training in the subject before that and had gone from his degree to work in industry for a year and then settled in the department, where he cheerfully informed me he didn't have a clue about my subject 'these days' but 'got by' with various textbooks and the Internet but nowhere near enough knowledge to supervise a dissertation. He literally shook my hand and said good luck. That was the sum of his supervision.

He really didn't have a clue. He was down for lecturing us on the subject later in the year and kept asking me if he got his facts right as I'd worked primarily doing my training in that area and he didn't know anything about it!! As a subject it's since been dropped from the syllabus as technology has taken over but I was furious. At myself for not double checking their research, and, at them for misleading statements in their prospectus.

By the time I found out he really didn't gave a clue and wasn't messing me around I couldn't change subject or supervisor but I was able to get support from where I had worked and did get my masters. I did for a couple of years lecture with the masters only and supervise dissertations because the other option, despite his qualifications, had no idea of developments at all.

My point : he had all the things you feel necessary but had zero idea. A PhD student would have been much much better placed (actually a potted plant would have been but, you get the point!).