15th December 2008, 10:50 AM
Students sueing universities happens quite a lot and the courts often rule in favour of the student. A recent case awarded compensation to a whole course since students felt they 'didn't enjoy the course'.
The problem with PhD's is, however, that gathering evidence to support your position is often more difficult, since it doesn't take place in a formal teaching context. The majority of PhD supevision takes place in face-to-face sessions with the principal supervisor, although many unis have now adopted a two or three supervisor model. The majority of dissatisfaction with PhD's usually stems from a falling out or major breakdown of trust between supervisor and candidate. If this has happened the student would particularly have a case if he/she would be able to how that little to no support was received either from the department (represented by the Graduate Tutor or Head of Department), the Faculty or University management (usually Dean of students or other representatives dealing with student concerns) to either mend the student-supervisor relationship or find a suitable replacement.
However, PhD's can run into all sorts of problems and some cannot always be blamed on supervisors or the university. In archaeology especially issues often arise from fieldwork failing or not going ahead (due to permission, funding), material not being available for study, the topic turns out to be too broad/ too narrow. A good supervisor ought to anticipate and mitigate some or all of these issues, but its not always possible (even professors can't stop armed conflicts in a study area....). So, there is always a great deal of self-responsibility involved, but it clearly depends on the issue at hand.
As for the latter issue I am not sure. Sounds like that would entail either a reduction in teaching/ demonstration hours, or a downgrading on the university pay scale. The latter should not be kosher, since Teaching Assistants usually have a well-defined pay-scale.
The problem with PhD's is, however, that gathering evidence to support your position is often more difficult, since it doesn't take place in a formal teaching context. The majority of PhD supevision takes place in face-to-face sessions with the principal supervisor, although many unis have now adopted a two or three supervisor model. The majority of dissatisfaction with PhD's usually stems from a falling out or major breakdown of trust between supervisor and candidate. If this has happened the student would particularly have a case if he/she would be able to how that little to no support was received either from the department (represented by the Graduate Tutor or Head of Department), the Faculty or University management (usually Dean of students or other representatives dealing with student concerns) to either mend the student-supervisor relationship or find a suitable replacement.
However, PhD's can run into all sorts of problems and some cannot always be blamed on supervisors or the university. In archaeology especially issues often arise from fieldwork failing or not going ahead (due to permission, funding), material not being available for study, the topic turns out to be too broad/ too narrow. A good supervisor ought to anticipate and mitigate some or all of these issues, but its not always possible (even professors can't stop armed conflicts in a study area....). So, there is always a great deal of self-responsibility involved, but it clearly depends on the issue at hand.
As for the latter issue I am not sure. Sounds like that would entail either a reduction in teaching/ demonstration hours, or a downgrading on the university pay scale. The latter should not be kosher, since Teaching Assistants usually have a well-defined pay-scale.