Lax PhD entry requirements need reform, says study

What sorts of processes are used that are effective? The idea of somewhat continuous enrolment, without a gathered field evaluation, doesn't help identify the best candidates really. Given too that students come in interested in a very narrow area, what we produce represents an extremely siloed views on research topics. We have constant "programme improvements" coming from those without Ph.Ds. We should be looking at real solutions as suggested in this article around pre-admissions assessment and more strict previous degree requirements.

I left Australia to do a PhD (fully funded) in the UK almost ten years ago, as I knew if I stayed in Australia I would never get a job, even though I was likely to get better funding and conditions for a PhD. At the time, the Australian system demanded rigor; high quality research proposals; minimum first class degrees for admission; and in most fields prospective students needed to be published to be considered for admission with full scholarship. Recently, a family member was guaranteed govt funding as long as they were accepted by the university into the PhD programme (which is actually against the federal funding rules, not being a competitive process). This person is very useful to their future supervisor, providing plenty of cheap labour and technical skill, but doesn't seem to posses the necessary critical or intellectual abilities for PhD level work. I can't understand what has changed in ten years?

The worst of it is the lack of any testing, such as the US GRE. Many departments take anyone who fulfills the entry requirements and can identify a supervisor -- and we come under a lot of pressure to be willing to supervise. For the international students, in many cases we're essentially running an immigration agency. For the domestic ones, we're often ruining their careers by recruiting them. It really is shocking.