Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope some of you might be able to give me some sage advice. I just completed a grant proposal as part of my comprehensive exam, and just received the results. I failed and need to do revisions. I accept that sometimes we can't be at our best and do fail, but what is unacceptable to me is either the incompetence or lack of interest of my advisory committee.
Prior to undertaking this portion of the comprehensive exam, I met with my advisory committee with the direction and ideas that were to go into my proposal. They indicated that I needed to work on my literature review, but my methodology and budget were sound, and they gave me the green light to move forward.
Upon review, my one examiner gave me feedback and said my proposal had no scientific merit or validity and my methdology was 'crap' along with a few other terrible adjectives. I am angry as my advisory committee reviewed my proposal prior and thought things were sound and allowed me to proceed forth, and it has been five days since the results, and my primary advisor has not had the curtosy to send me an email, even as a brief check in. This has been nothing but a familiar routine for the last 2 years of my program.
I am scheduled to meet with my program chair on Monday, and I have filled out the paperwork to withdraw from my program, along with a letter of complaint to the Dean of my college as to the inadequate supervision I have received. I have substantial email and paperwork to support my claims.
Am I taking the appropriate route?? Help!!!
Last edited by sunshineleith; 02-12-2012 at 03:35 AM..
Reason: paragraphs to make reading easier, moved from Canada forum
Who gave the bad reviews? If it was the funding agency, that is completely normal. Very few people get their proposals funded/approved on the first submission. For example, the average for NSF is the 4th version/submission (and that's for people with years of experience.)
If it was others on your committee that gave the bad review, well, that happens to a lot of us too. One person loves the idea, and another on the committee hates it. One person prefers one method, and another prefers another. If one member of the committee is butting heads with everyone else, then it's time to consider replacing that person.
Anyone seeking a PhD will eventually have to get used to criticism of their work. Not just at the comprehensive exam level, but when proposing their dissertation research and later defending it. Then comes when submitting manuscripts for review, and pretty much any time you put yourself out there. It's part of the process, and even though it can feel like they are beating you down, the key is to not take it personally. Critical review is an important part of the process of producing true scholarly work.
Most graduate students go through a period (often more than once) where they just want to say the heck with it and give it up. Many do just that, but those that keep going are able to because they learn somewhere along the way to take the criticism for what it's worth, revise their work, and continue on (or scrap the idea and come up with a different one if you think they might be right). If I were in your shoes (and I have been, believe me!), I would stop by your professor's office and drag him off to lunch to discuss the reviewer's comments and how the proposal could be revised.
I hope some of you might be able to give me some sage advice. I just completed a grant proposal as part of my comprehensive exam, and just received the results. I failed and need to do revisions. I accept that sometimes we can't be at our best and do fail, but what is unacceptable to me is either the incompetence or lack of interest of my advisory committee.
Prior to undertaking this portion of the comprehensive exam, I met with my advisory committee with the direction and ideas that were to go into my proposal. They indicated that I needed to work on my literature review, but my methodology and budget were sound, and they gave me the green light to move forward.
Upon review, my one examiner gave me feedback and said my proposal had no scientific merit or validity and my methdology was 'crap' along with a few other terrible adjectives. I am angry as my advisory committee reviewed my proposal prior and thought things were sound and allowed me to proceed forth, and it has been five days since the results, and my primary advisor has not had the curtosy to send me an email, even as a brief check in. This has been nothing but a familiar routine for the last 2 years of my program.
I am scheduled to meet with my program chair on Monday, and I have filled out the paperwork to withdraw from my program, along with a letter of complaint to the Dean of my college as to the inadequate supervision I have received. I have substantial email and paperwork to support my claims.
Am I taking the appropriate route?? Help!!!
If you want to be a quitter and allow others to control your life then quit; otherwise don't quit, make the changes and move forward. Your choice.
This is exactly why I am not a big fan of PhD programs. Your future and years of hard work are at the mercy of a bunch of academics who are in many cases borderline psychologically dysfunctional. There is also little to no accountability as to what goes on in PhD programs and the financial rewards and improved job prospects are often entirely absent if you happen to complete one. I'd advise you to wash your hands of the program and persue a program that is more focused on preparing you for work rather than further exploitation and post-docing.
I hope some of you might be able to give me some sage advice. I just completed a grant proposal as part of my comprehensive exam, and just received the results. I failed and need to do revisions. I accept that sometimes we can't be at our best and do fail, but what is unacceptable to me is either the incompetence or lack of interest of my advisory committee.
Prior to undertaking this portion of the comprehensive exam, I met with my advisory committee with the direction and ideas that were to go into my proposal. They indicated that I needed to work on my literature review, but my methodology and budget were sound, and they gave me the green light to move forward.
Upon review, my one examiner gave me feedback and said my proposal had no scientific merit or validity and my methdology was 'crap' along with a few other terrible adjectives. I am angry as my advisory committee reviewed my proposal prior and thought things were sound and allowed me to proceed forth, and it has been five days since the results, and my primary advisor has not had the curtosy to send me an email, even as a brief check in. This has been nothing but a familiar routine for the last 2 years of my program.
I am scheduled to meet with my program chair on Monday, and I have filled out the paperwork to withdraw from my program, along with a letter of complaint to the Dean of my college as to the inadequate supervision I have received. I have substantial email and paperwork to support my claims.
Am I taking the appropriate route?? Help!!!
Seriously? You're going to quit because someone called your work crap and your advisor didn't help you enough? That's practically the definition of a PhD program. I'd say quit because of the expense, or quit because there are no job opportunities in your field, but if those aren't your reasons then you'll need to buck up and forge on. Nag your advisor more, try to make some superficial changes to placate the name-caller and otherwise ignore him/her, and just get the thing done as quickly as possible so you can move on and start paying back loans. I'm sure some people had wonderful PhD experiences, but mine was just like yours and worse (I think that "no scientific merit" comment might be standard, because I got it too, plus I'm sure I got a "stupid at once point). Academia is a petty, insecure place where people's personal whims and bad moods are given free reign to terrorize graduate students, tenure-hopefuls and others. If you plan to stay in it, get used to it. Your withdrawal is very likely going to make the name-caller feel quite pleased, so you might consider continuing just out of spite.
This is exactly why I am not a big fan of PhD programs. Your future and years of hard work are at the mercy of a bunch of academics who are in many cases borderline psychologically dysfunctional. There is also little to no accountability as to what goes on in PhD programs and the financial rewards and improved job prospects are often entirely absent if you happen to complete one. I'd advise you to wash your hands of the program and persue a program that is more focused on preparing you for work rather than further exploitation and post-docing.
Ime, given that the review process for publication is pretty similar, you could say this experience is preparing her for what's to come. Eresh seems to be spot on. Last year I had one reviewer (Journal of A.Chem) who praised the work. It's important and adds to the body of scientific knowledge blabedahh. Then another reviewer who thought it was complete shyte. He added 3-4 months of work (actual lab work) to the project, let alone the re-writing. All in all, it tacked on almost a year. It was a bit of luck that the editor accepted the paper.
Heck, it's run of the mill at work as well. Forget publications. You'll have some people that will appreciate what you're doing and others that will poke holes in. You'll have good bosses that mentor and bad bosses that can really mess up your career if you're not on top it (first hand experience with that boloney). The place to get this kind of experience is in school if any where.
There are really two competing schools of thought on awarding PhD degrees. Some people believe that if you do the work you deserve the degree. A brilliant student may finish in four years and a fair student may take six years, but in the end, if you put up with the work, you end up with something.
There are others that want to make the PhD degree more exclusive. They have a particular ideal picture of a graduate from their department, and they simply aren't going to pass students that don't meet this standard, regardless of how much research is done.
It seems like you may have encountered the latter on your committee, and maybe this individual has a personal grudge as well. It was a running joke in graduate school that you had to get a high 'A' in a certain professor's class if you wanted to get your degree from his particular division, because he thought he was the bouncer that only let in the A-list students into the club.
If you want to leave the program, you can do that, but your letter of complaint to the dean will do absolutely nothing. The entire exchange, if there even is an exchange, will be an email from the dean to the department head saying that a leaving student had some concerns about faculty mentorship. The department head will ask your advisor what happened, and your advisor will say, "Failed comps, sour grapes." and that will be the end of that.
The other posters are right about having thick skin. The very first time I gave a research talk,in my first year of graduate school, my PhD advisor said "It is a good thing you are only a first year student, because it is going to take the lot of us at least four years instructing you in order for you to begin to sound intelligent." It was pretty harsh, but we went on to become friends and I have co-authored more than a dozen papers with him during grad school and in collaboration after I got an academic job of my own.
Keep in mind that if you do become a PH.d, then you're competition for the guys/gals who are already vying for money, which is dwindling and getting much harder to find. This was one of the big reasons that I said nyet to going on to grad school, the self interest of those advisors was to use you for the cheap labor and then not work with you adequately enough so as to have you become one of those other folks chomping at the FED trough. Also if you're not granted tenure, your research then becomes the property of the university. You're beginning to find out that academia is far from the idealized version of the Ivory Tower, rather it can be a snakepit of deceit, conflict of interest, and greed. Good luck in your pursuit, have a nice day.....
I saw what was going on and decided to get off at the MS level. Every one of my colleagues who got the PhD are doing post-docs 5 years later. They guy who made out like a champ got kicked out by the PI, then went for an MBA. He is the only guy doing well. The Phd just isn't worth it.
I saw what was going on and decided to get off at the MS level. Every one of my colleagues who got the PhD are doing post-docs 5 years later. They guy who made out like a champ got kicked out by the PI, then went for an MBA. He is the only guy doing well. The Phd just isn't worth it.
I failed my Physics qualifying exams and left with an MS 5 years ago.. and I eventually went on to work in the Financial industry. Despite all the depressing setbacks in the economy that unfolded between then and now, I still don't regret it (although it was initially a bummer.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
