Thank you for the feature ¡°Of?monsters and mentors¡± (1 June). The stories from the PhD students really resonated with me and the other students in my lab, particularly the accounts of casual neglect, erosion of self-confidence and pressure to remain silent and stick it out resulting from the power dynamics involved in the supervisor-student relationship. The stories validate my own difficult experiences during the degree, whereas before I might have dismissed my own concerns as born of ungratefulness or unfair personal bias.

I published multiple first-author academic papers before beginning my degree, but after years of study I have (as yet) failed to publish anything from my doctoral studies. I¡¯m not sure whether my supervisor bears the responsibility for this, but whether and where to place blame is beside the point because, without papers from my PhD, I have no chance of pursuing a career in academia when I graduate. The story is the same for many of my colleagues, very few of whom have remained in academia. Some leave for industrial research jobs; others, like me, for non-research roles.

I¡¯ve often thought that a good indicator of a supervisor¡¯s value as an academic mentor would be the percentage of their students who remain (and thrive) in academia. Such a measure might not be perfect. It could introduce perverse incentives for supervisors, such as encouraging students with little academic potential to pursue postdoctoral opportunities (where many academic careers already languish); but it would at least provide some insight to students, before beginning a research degree, of their chances of an academic career after four years of diligent work under a particular supervisor.

Name and address provided

?

In the light of Alexander Zubatov¡¯s feature concerning the need for more deep thinkers and the crucial role of higher education (¡°Selecting for superficiality¡±, 25 May), it was encouraging to see also Tara Brabazon¡¯s critical review of The?Idea of the PhD: The Doctorate in the Twenty-First-Century Imagination (Books, 25 May).

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

In the centenary year of the current-style PhD in the UK, consider how far the degree has broadened in its scope.

Intense intellectual capability and effort is required to earn a PhD in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects, which are constrained by the demands of logic and maths; and the same is true in many other scholarly disciplines. However, at some UK institutions nowadays, a PhD can also be awarded for performance activities such as dance or for creative writing. While the commitment required may be the same, such programmes surely demand a very different range of skills and accomplishments, resulting in different outcomes.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Are they sufficiently comparable to justify the same degree, or is there, to use the philosopher Gilbert Ryle¡¯s term, a ¡°category mistake¡± involved? Might a variation in the degree title be beneficial in some cases? Or is this apparent equalisation just the result of administrative convenience?

As Brabazon concludes: ¡°It is valuable to probe the purpose of the PhD¡­Imagination is not at issue. Intellectual property, academic integrity and international standards must remain the lens through which we view the doctorate.¡±

Paul G. Ellis
Business school tutor
London and Chichester

Send to

Letters should be sent to:?THE.Letters@tesglobal.com
Letters for publication in?³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ?should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ