Universities should define what good supervision looks like

His observations about the differences between providers struck a chord – particularly given Mack and I have been hearing increasingly problematic stories from students’ union officers across the country on this issue this summer.

As international student numbers have surged in recent years, their representation in students’ unions has grown too. And with that representation has come a steady stream of supervision horror stories that it’s hard to ignore.

We’ve heard from international students who never met their dissertation supervisor face-to-face. There have been multiple tales of students whose supervisor left the university with no replacement arranged for months. Then there’s the student who submitted draft chapters repeatedly, only to be told weeks before submission that their supervisor “doesn’t read drafts” and they should have known this somehow.

There have been stories of harassment, of “supervision” that only ever took place in groups of ten, of emails going unanswered for weeks, and of one line feedback emails from PhD student supervisors merely suggesting that a draft “needs more work”.

Whenever an issue like this comes up, we tend to go looking for policies or guidelines on what students might reasonably expect from their universities. But most universities have no publicly accessible policy on PGT dissertation supervision at all. Others bury vague and inconsistent guidance in programme handbooks that students struggle to find.

This vacuum leaves students exposed. An international student at University X might expect five hours of documented supervision meetings, while a student at University Y might struggle to get a single face-to-face conversation. Both are paying very high fees for what should be a comparable educational experience.

The consumer protection implications are significant. Students are entitled under law to services delivered with “reasonable skill and care,” but how can anyone judge whether that standard has been met when universities don’t define what supervision should involve? Without clear standards, disputes become impossible to resolve fairly, and students have little recourse when things go wrong.

The pattern

Advance HE’s Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey consistently shows that international students, mature students, and part-time learners report lower satisfaction with supervision. These are the groups least likely to know what they should expect, least equipped to navigate informal institutional cultures, and most dependent on clear, structured support.

International students face particular challenges. Cultural differences in supervisory expectations, unfamiliarity with UK academic norms, and language barriers all compound the problem. When a supervisor assumes students will be proactive in seeking help while students expect more directive guidance, the relationship can break down entirely. Without clear policies, mismatches become sources of frustration rather than opportunities for clarification.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s case summaries on postgraduates show what happens when supervision fails entirely. Students left without supervisors for months due to staff departures, bullying complaints mishandled because supervision arrangements were unclear, and communication breakdowns that basic procedures could have prevented.

A major 2023 systematic review synthesised findings from 36 international studies to create a comprehensive framework available on effective master’s thesis supervision. The authors note that staff:

…often receive little to no guidance on how to supervise effectively, so that new supervisors often have to rely on their own experiences as a student, or on the limited experience in their own network.

How we got here

I suspect the policy gap has historical roots. Postgraduate taught programmes were smaller, dominated by home students, and populated by undergraduates staying on at the same institution. Students knew the system, understood academic culture, and had networks to navigate problems informally. Formal policies may have seemed like unnecessary bureaucracy.

The numbers were more manageable too. A supervisor taking on three or four dissertation students per year, most of whom they’d taught previously, could maintain quality through personal relationships and institutional memory. Academic departments were stable, staff turnover was lower, and financial pressures on both students and institutions were less intense.

But the past is a foreign country – they do things differently there. International student recruitment has exploded, bringing students unfamiliar with UK academic expectations and dependent on formal support structures. Cohort sizes have grown dramatically, so supervisors juggle larger numbers of students they may barely know. Staff face greater pressure, with higher turnover rates and competing demands on their time.

For students, the financial stakes have changed completely. International students now invest £20,000-40,000 in one-year programmes, with dissertation supervision representing a substantial portion of that investment. And whether we like it or not, the economic relationship between student and institution has become more transactional, raising legitimate expectations about service quality and accountability.

The Office for Students’ focus on undergraduate provision hasn’t helped. The B2 condition requires universities to ensure students receive support to succeed in their studies, but the guidance barely mentions support for independent study, or supervision. It sends a signal that supervision quality is somehow less important.

This gap becomes more problematic when combined with competitive pressures facing universities. Institutions compete fiercely for international postgraduate students, but once enrolled, students discover wildly variable supervision standards with no regulatory floor to protect them. That is a failure that hurts both students and the sector’s reputation.

Getting it backwards

Some will argue that treating supervision as a consumer service undermines the academic partnership between student and supervisor. I’m not sure. Clear policies don’t diminish academic relationships – they strengthen them by establishing mutual understanding about roles, responsibilities, and expectations.

As we know from PGR, good supervision happens when both parties understand what they should expect from each other. Students need to know how much support they can reasonably request, what constitutes adequate feedback, and when they should seek additional help. Supervisors need clarity about their obligations, realistic workload expectations, and institutional backing when students need additional support they can’t provide.

Good policies create space for academic relationships to develop. If basic procedural questions are settled, supervisors can focus on intellectual guidance rather than managing student anxiety about whether they’re asking for too much of it. And students can engage more productively when they understand the boundaries and possibilities of the relationship.

Those that resist may claim policies stifle academic freedom or create unnecessary bureaucracy. But given the fees students pay and the importance of supervision to their outcomes, to students that resistance looks like an attempt to avoid accountability for basic service standards.

Students paying premium fees for their postgraduate education deserve better.