text:
Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)
TL;DR; I accidentally made the solution of an assignment visible to some of my students. How can I now fairly address that problem?
A few weeks ago I set a programming assignment to be done using Processing (a graphical programming tool), and to make sure the goal was clear I implemented a solution on openprocessing.org, which I made available to the students. On openprocessing.org, they can look at the working program (a little graphical game similar to tic-tac-toe), but the source code is hidden to them (I took a paid account to get private source code).
But then I embedded the openprocessing.org 'sketch' (a web page that displays the working program as described above) in a different web page, and failed to notice that the embedded version has the source code readily available (the person viewing the sketch just clicks an icon at the top and they get the editor with the source code). I think that's a bug with openprocessing.org and I complained to them (and there's obviously also an oversight on my part), but that's not relevant to my issue.
So basically the solution to the assignment was available to anybody who clicked that button at the top. It's not obvious, so I think only a few students noticed it. One team emailed me asking whether it was intentional and expressing their concern.
The assignment deadline is in 5 days (it's been up for 2 weeks) and it's the end of the term. This was supposed to be 10% of their grade.
I took down the visible solution, and I' trying to come up with a contingency plan. I could cancel the whole assignment, or give everyone full marks... Just let those who saw it submit as is (and indicate the source). I just don't know how to handle this best.
Any suggestions or recommendations?

Yeah just give the solutions to everyone to be fair. Too late to change grading and requirements. But hopefully you are curving the grade so the effect is nothing.

@ASimpleAlgorithm "hopefully you are curving the grade" I am not convinced grading on a curve is necessarily better.

This is something you need to be discussing with whoever's in charge of teaching in your department, not random strangers on the internet.

@Davidmh Are you speaking generally about curving, or about its value in this particular case? Because my statement was in regard to the benefits of curving in this particular case. By giving out the answers so everyone gains equally, no one gains an advantage in the curve. As for general complaints about curving, I probably don't curve in a way that has the drawbacks you are thinking of.

What does your school's academic honesty policy say about using the solution? Just because it was made available doesn't necessarily make it fair game for anyone who found it. (This doesn't help redress the situation for students who didn't use the solution, or help you determine which ones did, of course.)

Reminds me of an exam question in my computer science finals (set by Steve Bourne no less, IIRC) where we were asked to explain what was wrong with a supplied program, but they published the correct version by mistake. Any student saying "there is nothing wrong with this program" got full marks.

Just making sure, is this the Java or the JavaScript version of OpenProcessing? Because if this is the JS version, the fact that there isn't a convenient "show source code" button on the website itself doesn't mean anything; you can just as easily open the web inspector and see the source that way.

@AJMansfield it's the java version, but either way the code is visible in the web inspector. However, for a first-year introductory programming course I figured it was safe enough...

@David Richerby that's perhaps good advice. But I think having an open discussion about what's fair in this sort of situation is certainly worthwhile. I'm quite happy with the overall quality of this discussion.

@user3780968 This is not a discussion forum.

Very simple actually. Abandon the assignment. Apologize for the error, but not for wasting people's time. Those who didn't find the solution and worked on it certainly learned something. Those who found the solution used their time otherwise and hopefully learned something else.
Mistakes happen.
If you use a large number of exercises in grading it is probably harmless to give everyone full marks. They will be happy and it won't really matter otherwise. But trying, in any way, to discriminate between various levels of "performance" on such an exercise is a minefield.
One thing to remember, however. Presumably you gave that assignment because students would be expected to learn some specific thing(s) by doing it. That may not have occurred, so you need to assure that you find some way to reinforce that lesson in some future activity.

I agree with this aside from probably saying that you should only give the 10% mark to anyone who completed the assignment.

I agree with @Valorum, only those that took the time to complete the assignment (legitimately or copying) should receive full credit, but also go over the submitted assignments, as the ones that actually did do the work on their own will benefit more from having any errors pointed out to them so that they don't make the same error/assumption on the final or later in life.

@dmoore1181, do you really have a way to know who did what? Or would you just guess and grade accordingly. I agree, of course, that if they did the work they probably learned the appropriate lessons, but it seems impossible to judge that now.

@Buffy, by those that took the time to complete the assignment, I mean turned in anything at all. Sorry for the confusion.

If you are grading on a curve, I'd highly suggest counting the assignment as 0 points, fitting the curve, then adding back 10 points to everyone. Some students may have been depending on their high performance on the assignment relative to their peers to increase their grade. If you give everyone full marks but curve afterwards, you rob them of that opportunity. By curving first, you give everyone the same grade bump, but may need to explain to your superiors why your resulting class grade distribution does not fit the expected curve.

Don't completely abandon the project. If your syllabus had this on there you could have some students that are expecting to use this graded assignment to bring their grade in line with what they want.  Also, if your school has an honor code then you should be able to tell those who copy pasta.

I like @MooseBoys suggestion, because it maintains fairness across the grade distribution. If you use letter grades, another method might be: count the assignment as zero points, and grade your class out of a maximum of 90%, but calculate the delta that could have been caused by a perfect score on the project, and bump anyone within that delta below a grade cutoff up to the next grade. Whatever you do, be sure to communicate clearly to the students, so they don't feel like their grades are being arbitrarily adjusted except to their benefit

I regularly grade on a curve, but students can earn "extra credit" points that I add only after computing letter-grade cutoffs.  My standard response to mistakes in assignments (prematurely released solutions, major errors in the official solutions or grading rubrics, etc.) is to make the entire assignment extra credit and give everyone full (extra credit) points.

Beware grading on a curve strictly within a single class. The typical class size makes the sample size to small to expect a normal curve. It's far better to curve with data from other classes to keep the sample size up. But things like having an assignment go poof for one class can skew that.

I would add that this answer doesn't give a time scale at all for when this should be done - which is quite important.  I would argue (along with others judging by the comments) that this should all be done after the assignment deadline is complete.  By not telling people they can get 10% of the grade by putting any rubbish in, I would just tell students that you're "aware of issues, but the assignment is still required"; and then afterwards "sorry for the error, full grades will be awarded for those who completed the assignment".

@UKMonkey, that is dangerously close to secret grading criteria, which is unethical.

@Buffy Not really.  It's more like an attendance record, which you HAVE been told will impact 10% of your grade.

For how many assignments are the solutions available somewhere (maybe on StackOverflow or other similar sites), but you just don't know it?  For how many assignments are the solutions available to some but not all of the students (e.g. in a fraternity/sorority filing cabinet)? This answer is not scalable and impossible to apply consistently, because you don't & can't know all the cases where the preconditions for it exist. Paul's answer is much better here.

Hmmm, @WBT, if I created the assignment and haven't used it previously, how can the answer be "out there". Of course when you use recycled questions have to assume the answers are available. Why do you assume that is the case here?

@Buffy I don't necessarily assume that the answer is always for sure out there, but you don't know, even if it's a new assignment you created for that occasion.  Within minutes of you giving the assignment, it might have been posted to a forum like StackOverflow and a solution might have been posted very soon thereafter. Also, other professors might have independently but previously created substantively similar assignments/problems which might be publicly posted somewhere, with solution. Even if what's out there is not a 100.00% match, it might get someone most of the way to done.

Leave the solution visible.  Comment on it to everyone (so it is fair).  Still require everyone to turn in a solution, but cannot be verbatim copy (but they can copy the algorithm/ideas/etc).
Then, announce and include that same tool/problem solving technique in the final exam.  Those who work the hardest on understanding (not just copying) will be rewarded for their effort.  Those who do not, will not do as well on the final.
Naturally the final has less time to do the work, but they have already seen an explicit way to work out that type of problem.  If it is too big, you could provide some pieces, and they have to add the remaining functions.
The net effect of leaking the solution will just that everyone studies it to learn the tool for their exam.

Thoroughly agree on leaving the solution visible. It is important that everyone has transparent access to it. I remember a particularly hard class I had where some students used a solution manual (against the rules) and I did not. Ironically, the students breaking rules  with the solution manual learned a lot more than I did because I had no way to learn how to do the problems.

@Paul I chose not to leave the solution visible, because I believe (rightly or wrongly) that those who don't see the solution and spend time trying to figure it out) will benefit the most from this assignment. Of course, I mean "benefit" in terms of learning; and my main concern is that there is no undue benefit in terms of grades to the others. They will then all get the solution after the deadline and hopefully study it when preparing the final, which is one week after that.

I like this more than the accepted answer. The accepted answer disregards the fact that some students have wasted their time for little benefit within the course. This answer provides a way to reward them for their effort in their grades.

@user3780968 Fair enough - it is your decision.  But students who had not noticed the leaked answer will be graded behind the curve of those who did.  Students who are not outgoing in their personality are less likely to know about the leak and less likely to have it shared by those who did.  I expect the leak was 'copied' by someone and even though you are hiding it, will be shared around to some subset of the students - not necessarily fair.

@Paul I do think that I will have to give everyone full marks. The fact of hiding or showing and publicizing the solution is a separate issue.

@user3780968 please see my other comment about how I was hurt by not having access to the answers that others had access to. I'm concerned that by hiding the answer you are making a bad situation worse; since this extends to the final you run the risk of hurting some students twice.

@chessofnerd if the solution manual (which you weren't supposed to have) was the best learning tool in that course you took then I think it was a really poorly designed course. Hopefully I am giving them plenty of material whereby they can "learn to solve the problems". I will also walk through the solution to the assignment after the deadline has passed.

@user3780968, yes, it was a poor course ;) I think walking over the solution and making it available after wards is a good idea. Best of luck!

I would just give them all the 10% saying that you made the solution available by accident - they will laugh and forget in 10 minutes. And, yes, been there, done that... You are not alone.
Just rely on the other 90% to give you the grading curve - nothing wrong with those I hope.
Based on one comment below, Just for clarity for some, I am not suggesting forcing the results to some arbitrary grading curve - just that the results will have a « curve » some in the highest band, others in other bands.

Just rely on the other 90% to give you the grading curve.                                                                There has been no mention of a curve in the question.

@technical_difficulty The OP says that this assignment is worth 10% and it is the end of term. So assuming the other 90% of assessments have been completed then the results will tend to form a curve - unless, highly unlikely, all the other grades are the same for each team / student... I did not suggest that the other 90% needs to be curved ie have some sort of pass/fail weighting or at least 5% of the cohort get an A or A* or equivalent.

As a student, I disagree with "they will laugh and forget". If effort went into that exercise by student A, and student B just got the same grade for free, it will feel bad for student A. Because A has now lost time that A could have used on a different lecture instead. I am not saying I disagree with the solution proposed by you. But I doubt that everybody will be happy.

@lucidbrot Having had to stand in front of 200 students to apologize for my error - and had the explanation and solution accepted by the 200, I think I have the evidence I need... Also, I have had discussions with students in private to get their opinion...

Instead of a programming task, make them explain in a short paper how your solution works, what advantages and disadvantages there are, what compromises you made and so on.

If there is enough time given, that sounds like a great idea! Students who already worked on this assignment will be able to reuse their understanding and their code samples for the writeup, so the time invested is not that lost.

I suggest improving your answer by including pushing back the deadline by a reasonable amount (which presumably you have in mind).

thanks, but there really wasn't enough time left in the term for this. Plus, it's unfair to those who already spent significant time on the assignment without noticing the solution.

A UML diagram as to how it works would be a good way to do it.

You might be able to measure the damage by just asking the students. Most students are honest if you're transparent with them (though some campus cultures might be different than others). Consider asking each student to attach a signed statement to their assignment saying that they cited any resources, including solution sets, that they referenced. You can explicitly mention why you're asking -- tell the students that you will not penalize anyone who saw the solutions, but you do consider it cheating if they lie about it.
If it turns out that everyone saw the solutions, or if you don't feel that the above approach would work in your situation (e.g., very large class, too many unscrupulous students), then I agree with the other answers -- don't grade for "quality." Instead, just grade for effort -- all working solutions get 10/10, regardless of whether they just barely met the requirements from the assignment or whether they are as good as your solution. That way no one who made a good effort would get a lower score than someone who used the solutions.

Basically, the added lesson of properly referencing sources, and how to do so, can be an additional part of the assignment. It can also include a discussion of licensing and what is acceptable to do from a licensing/copyright POV. Overall, this could be a very beneficial learning experience for the students.

You could make the leaked solution available to everyone. However if you only do this, it will be somewhat inequal to students who have already put a lot of work in on the problem, compared to students who have not done much/any work on the assignment yet. That is somewhat balanced by the intrinsic unmeasurable natural usefulness of having worked on assignments, however.
To iron out that inequality, you could also modify the assignment slightly so that it now involves a slight (not major, or else you would be unfairly increasing the expected work load of the class) twist, that will require them to both implement the leaked solution, and then solve some additional problem on top of it that requires understanding the leaked solution and expanding slightly upon it. The extra work should be designed to be more than balanced by the reduced work resulting from having the original solution provided. (Weight the assignment a bit less since most of the assignment solution was provided.)
The advantage of adding a twist designed that way, is that the students still need to do the work and understand the original assignment, and get the deeper experience of building upon it (which is of course a good sort of experience for programming problems).

What about students who already finished the assignment as originally described and were counting on not spending any more time on it so they can compete other tasks?

That's why I said "not major" - those students, having done the full work themselves rather than being given the answer, will be in the best position to do the additional bit of work (since not only have they done the main work, they did it themselves and so will tend to have the best familiarity with it). And while it will be a bit more work, it's much less of a disadvantage for them this way than if the assignment they did in full were disregarded. (And if a student made an earnest complaint along these lines, I'd probably waive the added requirement for them.)

Ask whoever is responsible for teaching in your department for guidance. It is likely that your university has a policy in place for these sorts of events, and there's no way for strangers on the internet to know what those are.

I'd say that the role of education in academia is to teach people how to solve problems themselves. This applies even more so to people who are teaching in academia. So, a piece of advice stating that "instead of doing something you find appropriate to correct your mistake, go and fetch some canned legal solution" deserves a downnote.

Sure, learning for yourself is important, but so is keeping your job, and violating your workplace’s policies is a good way to fail in that goal.

I would take the answers away and give everyone the 10%, but sneak a question or two from the assignment into the final (if you have a final) so that the people who put the effort in and learned it properly would still get rewarded

One  option would be to change the objective of the assignment. Instead of implementing a solution from scratch, improve the one that has been given.
Of course you may have to define what kind of improvements are going to get good grades (just changing the color scheme of the game probably isn't going to be worth much, unless the new scheme gives better user feedback of the game status, or whatever), and may sure the new task is consistent with the learning objectives of the original assignment. This idea would probably be more useful at an advanced level than for complete beginners.

Not ideal, but you could give an alternative criterion: explain the working example source to satisfaction (works better if you don't have to change the assignment for everyone, but can rather ascertain who discovered the source; although it will surely leak to others if some have already discovered it), so that it is equivalent to having come up with the solution themselves. As I said, not ideal, but you seem to be in  a pickle, so I thought I'd suggest it anyway.

one idea:
Announce the error.  Post the source code.  Extend the deadline.
The assignment is now to annotate your code full, detailed explanation of how it works and why.  Provide office hours for students to bring in what they have completed, and try to help them understand your implementation in terms of (what there is of) theirs.
This way, students who have put in a lot of work up to this point can still benefit indirectly.  But still, probably err on the side of forgiveness with the grading.

Firstly I'd make all the students aware of your error. The students will do one of two things.

They'll copy the solution verbatim which means they at least looked at your provided link, either before (good) or after (not so good, but at least they looked) you published your mistake.

Or

They'll either write it themselves entirely without your source code, or they'll rewrite your source code enough that it's not easily recognisable as your source code.

Now, you could penalise the first group if they don't give recognition that it's copied from the source you (accidently) provided, but depending on the wording of the assignment (if it said find a way to do X) then they may of technically done nothing 'wrong' by copying your source anyway. Much of the open source's world's code is simply copied from elsewhere, sometimes sadly without reference to where it's copied from.
The second group have at least put some effort into either writing the original code and then referring to your solution, or re-writing your code enough that it no longer looks like your code, hopefully learning something in the process.
What maybe interesting, is if you do this disclosure in a sensible fashion (i.e. only in the lecture, go to the website and show students 'Look, if you click here, you can see my solution'.) Only students paying attention, coming to the lecture will benefit directly from you disclosing your mistake. I may of had lecturers do things like this, such as displaying via a overhead projector (rather than the shared lecture slides) certain questions which may of been very like those questions you'd find in the final exams.

Plagiarism is always something you should be worrying about. Especially for an undergraduate class like this where there are plenty of solutions online for building a tictactoe game, or even building it in processing. If people wanted to copy, they would likely have found someone else's solution online due to yours being hidden.
If you are worried that someone may copy of it, the simplest way to address the problem is to tell the class what happened and to remind them that copying your solution is plagiarism.

For programming assignments such as this, sometimes it is hard to come up with a new solution - but once you've seen and understood a working solution, the problem becomes much easier (even if you're not copying anything). It is certainly difficult to argue that students who saw it, even if briefly and without malicious intent, didn't have an unfair advantage.

It is not an unfair advantage. Any student is able to use the internet or read a book to research good ways to approach the problem. Using the internet, books, tutors, etc outside of class are a great way to supplement your learning. Just because some choose to do more outside of class, does not make it unfair.

It is unfair because the students who accessed it before it was pulled saw the tailored solution to the problem (i.e., the exact solution the instructor was expecting, given it is their own implementation). Every single student in the class had access to the internet; only the ones who noticed, in time, that the solution was available on the test website had access to that source code.

I'm not sure that's plagiarism. The students may have cited the solution; the problem remains the same.

I disagree with this answer.  If I were in this class, I might think the posted solution was intended to to help the students with a tough assignment.  I'm never had a teacher before who required my to cite their lecture notes or slides when using those to get help on a homework problem.  I don't think students should be penalized for this.  Also, you're ignoring the bigger problem, that some of students got help from this posted solution while others didn't, as osuka_ mentioned.  This is not like using external resources, as the amount of help they got was based on which link they used.

Henning, programming assignments typically have some sort of requirement that the work must be your own. You can't just submit a solution you found online.

But you can certainly use the way how to solve the problem. In mathematics it is often about realizing the right substitution or just the right sequance of steps to be done. You don't have to copy anything, but once you have seen the right steps it is much easier just to reproduce them. In my studieswhen I went through the official exercise book and then the exam contains problems taken from that book only with small adjusments, it was no plagiarism to use the solution procedures I learned in that book. I did not have to remember every letter, but knowing the procedure helps tremendously.

@Anon I spent hours putting together a variation of existing online games, and they coded a "vanilla"  version during a lab. The assignment was only about specific parts of the solution and for one in particular, it would be really hard to come up with a (significantly) different solution to mine. Especially for 1st year students.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
How to Shop for a Good Advisor (In the sense of a Good Person and an Advisor)
I want to know how I can shop for an advisor (between departments) that does his job: advises students without coercing them to put things in their dissertation they don't believe in or choosing topics for them so that they themselves can profit. I guess I want to find the signs of a not-bad advisor (not harmful) who is interested in the topic rather than a positively good advisor.

See this answer, especially the part from "the best way to find out about a potential advisor is to talk to their current students" until the end.

No. If you get them alone, off the record (e.g. by Skype call, not email) they will warn you off. (What do they have to gain by covering for him?)

It sounds like your major concern about potential advisors is the level of independence you would have, which is in most cases just a matter of preference (coercive advisors are much less common than "very hands-on, but that works for some people" advisors, you seem to not want either one). So whether an advisor violates ethical norms or not, you can ask "How involved is the advisor with respect to choosing research topics, conducting the research, and writing up results?" and there's no reason for a student not to tell you truthfully "very involved" or "hands-off, but there if you need him."

@ff524 By covering for their terrible advisor, a student gains the peace of mind that there is absolutely no risk that saying anything bad about the advisor will ever get back to him/her. On the other hand, the student gains nothing by telling the truth except maybe a warm feeling from having done a good deed.

With a few obvious exceptions, a "good advisor" is totally dependent on the fit with the student. You have some opinions already on what you are looking for, which is good, but not everyone may share your opinions, for example, I disagree with "choosing topics for them so that they themselves can profit" - I would much rather work with an advisor who expects to profit from the work I do (giving the student appropriate credit, of course), and would highly value the guidance on choosing a fruitful direction of study from a seasoned mentor rather than follow blindly my own naive assumptions. (note: I'm not saying your opinions/qualifications are wrong, just supporting my assertion that "good" is relative)
That said, here are my suggestions:
1) If your field allows it, I would highly recommend a graduate program that has some sort of "rotation" system where you spend time(1-3 months) with 2-4 different advisors so you can learn their styles and interests. Of course this isn't always an option, so...
2) Be honest about your expectations with any mentors you are interested in. You will get the most helpful response if you don't include value judgments in your expectations - don't ask "are you good at meeting regularly with your students?" Instead ask, "How often do you meet with your students? What does a regular meeting with you look like?"
3) Talk with current and former students of your advisors of interest; make your personal interests and expectations clear. Ask about all phases of their project, from initial planning to final writing. Find out how successful they have been publishing their work and if their expectations related to publication were met.
4) Make sure your methodological approaches agree with your advisor, not just research interests - if you believe strongly in quantitative methods and statistical analysis, but your advisor publishes on anecdotes and case studies, there is going to be friction and your advisor may not be equipped to mentor you.
5) Most of the stories I have heard about professors who are inflexible with their students or who have taken unfair credit for their students work are related to pressure around the time of tenure or in very large labs where projects are pre-defined - these situations might be fine for other students but given your concerns you may want to avoid them unless everything else makes it a great fit.

"avoid professors who are up for tenure now or in the near future" - The tenure clock is pretty short, so you're basically saying "Avoid professors unless they are either brand new or already tenured".

@ff524 I clarified my point 5) a bit - I meant this as advice only because of the questioner's specific concerns but I think my original writing came off a bit harsh - Insulin69 seems to expect a high amount of independence from their future advisor, and my opinion is that such independence will be more likely found with a more established advisor.

By those criteria, the best advisor is the one whose students have the best placements - post doc, TT, or otherwise. It might be hell, but track record (considering attrition rate as well) speaks volumes.  High attrition rates suggests bad environment.  Low placement suggests inadequate advising and career-advance credit given. Faculty with a proven succession of placements must be doing something right.

I know faculty with very successful placements but who make their students MISERABLE and are horrible human beings in general. (Their attrition rate is not bad despite being so abusive because they only accept extremely ambitious students, who don't drop out because they are willing to put up with the abuse for the expectation of a great placement at the end of it.) So I would caution against looking at placement alone.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Losing faith in my PhD advisor?
What should I do if I have lost faith in my PhD advisor (leadership, research direction, everything)? I have worked in this lab for three years and from my observation, none of my advisor's project work out and zero publications so far. Since I already had a gut feeling that everything would eventually go on a dead march, I have tried to propose to him an alternative approach but my advisor never listens (or only listens passive-aggressively). Guess what, my advisor ran out of funding, and he blamed us (the graduate students) for no publication. Now we all have to serve as TAs. I somehow manage to pump out my own project but my advisor didn't quite like it unless it's his idea. He told me he had no funding for my proposal and continue to gamble on his own project. (Come to think of it, no funding was a lie.) Recently, I am publishing my paper and the way he edited my manuscript is always cursory, mindless and pushy. I have a feeling that I am destined to fail the moment I joined this lab, any advice?
I joined the lab because his research topics are interesting but found out later that all his approaches to the problem just don't "hit" the point. For example, you know you need different tools to solve a problem but he just keeps using the same one again and again and my mind just get narrower and narrower. Also his work were simply a rehash of the previous one, like switching apple to orange, and everything else stays the same.

What's the reason you have not changed your advisor yet?

Cuz I beat him by coming up my project and they were successful so far, I guessed he hate me for that and trying to stall my work.

@user10694 I do not believe you answered scaaahu's question. Why are you still with that adviser? The normal thing to do in your situation is to change advisers.

Why are there so many downvotes on this question? It's sort of personal, but I don't feel that this is a bad question per se.

My guess is in part because the question is buried under so much backstory that it reads more like a rant than a question. But it is a valid question.

@xLeitix - I agree with aeismail about the "backstory," especially when you consider the source. This isn't the first time 10694 has gone off about jealousy, egos, and alleged abuse, about an advisor who "never listens", and the frustration of getting advice from soneone who "isn't smarter" than the student. Too much "everyone's out to get me" as a recurring theme raises my skepticism. Even if there is a valid case here, though: either buck up, grit your teeth, and finish; or else find a new advisor.

Cuz I beat him — Get out. Get help.

I was in a similar situation as you, my advisor wasn't as bad as you describe, but I have completely lost respect for him at some point. The only way forward was to leave(after four years in).

but found out later that all his approaches to the problem just don't "hit" the point

...

I guessed he hate me for that and trying to stall my work

...

Any risk that he will rant me to the co-supervisor?

...

I just had that bad feeling about the project he led and many of his direction doesn't make sense to me. Doing his way or my way is doomed anyway.

There is only one suggestion that we can give you. Get out of there. There is no telling whether his research is indeed "doomed", or whether you just have different angles of attack and ideas. In the end, it does not matter. You have no respect in his guidance and will need to find an advisor whose advise you actually trust.

we get along okay

You don't.
Look at your question (and if you're so inclined, look at your previous questions). As user11171 and xLeitix point out in a previous answer, the advisor-student relationship is broken.
At this point, it almost doesn't matter whose fault it is (but see below). Since the trust in the relationship is gone, even well-intentioned gestures will be misunderstood, and unless there's a strong desire on both sides to repair things, the best bet is to leave.
For the future though, as you look for a new advisor, it's important to keep in mind that on average advisors are not malicious agents trying to harm their students. Again, I emphasize on average. Which means that behavior that carries multiple interpretations can be interpreted as benign but neglectful rather than as malicious.

Sounds like you two just don't get along. You are not interested in what the other is working on, and there seems to be no respect between the two of you. You need to think about working with someone else, or you need to be more open-minded about your advisor's suggestions and his ideas.
I think that a very small percentage of advisors are universally terrible for everyone. Most student-advisor problems come from the fact that you are incompatible. You either need to make serious effort to understand one another, or you had better get out before it is too late.

we get along okay (at least respectfully) but I just had that bad feeling about the project he led and many of his direction doesn't make sense to me. Doing his way or my way is doomed anyway.

I joined the lab cuz his research topics is interesting but found out later that all his approaches to the problem just don't "hit" the point. For example, you know you need different tools to solve a problem but he just keep using the same one again and again and my mind get narrower and narrower. Also his work were simply a rehash of the previous one, like switching apple to orange, and everything else stay the same.

I am sorry for your situation. I think many of us had confronted situations like this some time in our academic tenure.
Although you should make your own mind about how to handle it, I personally suggest looking for another adviser. If you feel uncomfortable and you don't want to end your relationship in a bad term (assuming your current adviser will not take your decision easily), you can always think about adding a co-supervisor. This way you'll be on track and will be mostly working with your second adviser.

Any risk that he will rant me to the co-supervisor?

@user10694 Do not assume that your new adviser will be swayed by someone more than they will be swayed by you. When I hire someone (in industry), I care much more about the interview than I do about a single reference.

In most academic environments, advisers do their best in keeping a professional relation. It'll be less likely to rant about a current student with no point. And remember, he/she also wants to resolve the issues, for you and for himself.

For anyone else in the same situation, gather as much evidence you can and send a formal complaint to the management. Maybe that risks even more the chances you get your PhD. Another option is trying to readdress the situation with a new discourse (in emails) and trying to raise the accountability level from the supervisor. Another resource is to ask the management for an external communication assistant between you and your advisor. You can try this in the first place. These does not guarantee you fulfilling the PhD, but would you rather stay passive?

Would you please explain who is "the management"?

The management is the Faculty board.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How to start international research collaborations within a specialised medical field
I am a researcher with 11 years of experience working on a series of projects in the health and education fields. These projects are loosely linked in that they are psych/ social science based and mostly involve quantitative methodology (e.g. training and development for mid career and older workers, workplace health and safety, inclusive education for children with autism and other disabilities).
However, I have developed a special interest in researching psychosocial health/ quality of life in people with congenital heart disease.
There are no researchers in my country investigating this topic (that I am aware of), however I have identified several researchers and groups internationally.
I would be interested in collaborating with them applying my experience to create different approaches to improving patient outcomes (e.g. flexible work policies/ career guidance for teens and adults, inclusive education for school aged children, positive psychology).
My strategy is to read some of these researchers' works in detail and then contact them with my ideas. I was wondering if I have the right idea or whether I am on the wrong track entirely? I don't have much experience with collaboration.

It would be easier if you "knew someone that knows someone". Introductions, even indirect, would help to give your proposal more credibility.

Thank you! I have since found a couple of local (ish) people doing PhD's in this area who might have contacted these researchers - so I will see if they know anything and are willing to share information.

If you are known in the field and have publications on the topics you wish to collaborate on, then emails to others may work fine. But you will often be ignored, as you  may know already.
A better way, however, is to attend international conferences with the goal of meeting people and discussing ideas. Even if you aren't a presenter, you can approach those who are and others you might meet in sessions of common interest. The "coffee table" is a great place to introduce yourself and give a bit of background.
Even better is to spend a sabbatical somewhere that has researchers you'd like to work with. That assumes funding of course.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Backing down from a faculty position. Future career problems?
I've gotten myself in a tricky situation.
Before finishing my PhD I applied to several positions, both faculty and postdoc. I received offers for a postdoc position at one of the top universities in my field and an tenure-track faculty position at a good university with a very good salary. Since I really wanted to do a postdoc, I asked to defer the faculty position for one year and it was accepted. They made it clear however that they could only "reserve" the position for 1 year, any further delay would cancel the appointment.
Few months into my postdoc, we found out my wife is expecting and the baby (our first) will arrive the month I'm suppose to move to the new uni. This means that during the final month we would need to search for house in another country, have the baby, arrange for the move, prepare for the new position, move the newborn baby to a new country, find new doctors, etc. I cannot move alone (and don't want to) since it will be too hard on my wife (we have no family in either countries).
My current lab offered to extend the postdoc for another year. However, I would need to back down from my agreement with the other uni. Will this kill my opportunities for a faculty position the years to come? Will it put me in the spot of explaining at every future application that I'm not a badly educated person?
P.S.: just for the record, I was/am really looking forward for the faculty position and I'm not happy that I'll have to do the whole interviewing procedure again...

Why not move sooner?  Is it really impossible to move when nine months pregnant?

@AnonymousPhysicist It is not impossible, but it will be hard (pregnant women cannot fly during the last few months, so sooner would be ~2-3 months earlier). Also, there is an insurance issue, finding a new doctor/birth clinic, getting acquainted with the new country's healthcare system, etc. It would significantly increase the stress on my wife and the baby (and myself).

A tenure track position at a good university, with a very good salary, at a place you are looking forward to moving to, is a bit like a unicorn. Do you realize how fortunate you are? This could be the place where you happily and productively spend the next 20-30 years. I do not mean to belittle your current problems involving your wife's pregnancy and family situation, but I advise doing your best to find a solution that doesn't involve giving up the position if at all possible. Such offers do not show up everyday, and you may easily not have such luck with your next TT job search.

In your comments on the other answers you act as though you are only asking about backing out of the position as a last resort, but the wording of the postscript "I'll have to do the whole interviewing procedure again" makes it sound like you have already made up your mind that you will decline the faculty appointment.

I haven't made my mind yet. I just like to be prepared for any contingency. As @DanRomik said below, I'll first try to find a solution with the uni. If every try falls through, I should be able to explain why I backed down and hope for the best.

As it happens we went through a similar process; while it was stimulating/challenging, we certainly survived, and had fun in the end.

@electrique Kudos to you for taking the birth of your first child very seriously, but consider also the long-term benefits to your family of accepting this position. There may be difficulties in the short term for you and your wife, but you can get through them, and the baby won't even know about them. I'd re-evaluate the option of moving earlier (healthy pregnant women can fly safely at 36 weeks ).

Additionally, my wife flew 5 weeks after birth (6 hour flight) and she was fine. If your wife is in good health, the Uni may be able to move the deadline back 1-2 months, or you could just start and then take parental leave...

I suggest contacting the department that hired you (the department chair and/or a few colleagues you trust) and explaining the problem. If it is a good university in a developed country, it is almost certain they would have all kinds of resources (both formal and informal) that you are not aware of to help new faculty members with issues related to their relocation, e.g., housing, health insurance and health care, moving arrangements, and other relevant things to ease your transition. They may also be able to rearrange your teaching to allow you not to teach the first semester, so effectively you could arrive on campus a few months after your initial appointment date. This could be done informally or as part of the institution's official policy for parental leave. My institution for example has quite generous policies for such things, so you may be pleasantly surprised at how flexible they can be.
Remember, your new department hired you, so they are probably just as eager to see you joining them as you are to be joining, and would be just as disappointed if you don't come. Will the move be stressful? Of course, any move is stressful, certainly between countries and with a family. But when you weigh the short-term difficulties against the very long term benefits from taking this dream position, I think it is a no-brainer (at least given the information you've provided in the question). Good luck!

Dear @DanRomik, indeed my first and main course of action will be to find a solution where I can keep the job. That is, I will talk to the head of the department and the dean, I'll involve the HR, etc. This question is about the worst case scenario: If after all these I still have to back down from the agreement, I would like to know the consequences of doing so, in order to define the limit of "inconvenience" I am willing to accept.

I see. Well, I guess the point I was trying to make in my comment and answer is that in the worst case scenario, the main negative consequence to you is the loss of the job itself, and that is already bad enough that it seems to override all other secondary negative effects. But, if you are insisting (as it seems that you are) on setting that aside and focusing on the other effects of such a decision, then I would say: 1. You will very probably hurt your chances at being considered favorably again for a job at the same institution. ...

... 2. At other institutions, probably (one can never know for sure) you will not hurt your chances too badly, as long as you take the utmost care to avoid the perception that you acted unethically, meaning that you are able to convincingly explain that you bailed out on your job commitment only as a last resort and effectively had no other realistic choice. Be prepared to explain yourself - it will very likely come up (so the answer to your "will this put me on the spot..." question is Yes, though that may not be a problem if you are patient and have a good explanation).

The bottom line is, people usually understand that sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances that can force someone to make a decision that normally would be considered unacceptable. So do your best to avoid breaking the commitment, but if you absolutely have to, my guess is you will probably be okay.

Thanks @DanRomik. I believe the above answer plus your comments below are what I was looking for.

This question is about the worst case scenario — The worst case scenario is that after you explain the situation to the department head, they immediately rescind your offer.  But in that case, not explaining your situation to the department head would almost certainly lead to the offer being rescinded later anyway, and you would appear unethical.

@JeffE I don't understand what you are suggesting. For sure I will explain the situation to the department head, since I would like to keep the position. The worst case scenario is them being very rigid to their demands (date of move, not providing any help, etc.) and my wife being very rigid in her demands (date of move, etc.) :)

The University must really want you to defer your appointment for a year. I anticipate they will do all they can to help this work out for you. I agree with @DanRomik regarding the unicorn remark. This market is extremely competitive and you are fortunate to 1) have an offer, 2) have an offer you want, and 3) have a suitor that will allow you to defer for a year.

@JeffE, It isn't unethical not to tell them, and may in fact be legally protected information in the US (i.e. he cannot be discriminated against just because his wife is pregnant, and that brings up complications). I'm not sure about the legality, because it is his wife, and not him, that is pregnant. It certainly isn't unethical to not explain the situation, in fact if he went by himself to take the job, then immediately had to return back to his wife, and only told the department after his employment began of the situation, that still isn't unethical.

It isn't, however, unreasonable to have a frank and honest discussion with the department about the situation, if he wants to take that route (a route I would personally take).

@daaxix It isn't unethical not to tell them, and may in fact be legally protected information in the US — It's unethical not to reveal the existence of a situation that may require a further delay in starting the faculty position.  But I agree that there are circumstances where hiding the details of that situation is ethical, or even necessary.

@JeffE Well, I will reveal all information when it's time. It's too early in the pregnancy and many things can happen. Furthermore, I hope to be able to keep my obligations without having to postpone or anything (asking my parents or in-laws for help). So, I don't find it necessary to inform the university at this moment. Thanks for the advice though.

I can only repeat what @DanRomik said in his comment. Tenure track jobs at good universities are rare. There is no guarantee that you will get such an opportunity again.
I understand that the situation is inconvenient, but it is not impossible. In particular, many problems can be solved if you're willing to consider spending money. For example, don't buy a house but simply rent the first apartment you find for a year; pay for your parents or your in-laws to travel and stay with your wife for as long as is necessary; pay a company to move all of your stuff; etc. Yes, all of this might cost you $10k or $20k, but that's a small down payment overall on your salary over the next 20-30 years. Don't be afraid to spend money if you can justify it as a really good investment to get a job you might not get otherwise.

Dear Wolfgang Bangerth, as I said to @DanRomik above, my first course of action will be to make all possible to keep the position (thanks for the nice ideas). Nevertheless, there are many twists in life. This question is about the worst case scenario: If after all these I still have to back down from the agreement, I would like to know the consequences of doing so, in order to define the limit of inconvenience I am willing to accept.

You might never get another faculty position as good as this one. You're probably not going to be considered a flake in the community as long as you can explain your reasons well, but you're certainly not going to get another offer from this one department if you turn them down.

You asked whether staying in the post-doc instead of starting the job you accepted would kill your opportunities for a faculty position in years to come. "Kill" is a strong word, and job offers depend on many things, including publications, research area, references, departmental politics, and special skills (advanced statistics, e.g.) It won't mean that you'll never get another offer, but it could mean you won't have an offer for the  following year. There might not be any suitable openings.
It could affect your reputation and tip the scales against you, too. This is because having a baby is not on the list of "Acceptable Reasons to Back Out of a Tenure-Track Position." Nothing is, except a better offer, and that's acceptable but not appreciated.
One of the most valued (or at least praised) qualities in junior faculty is a fiendish dedication to work, measured in time spent on campus. If anyone at the job school resented your not joining them, they'd have no trouble consructing a persona for you that is non-serious, overly-protective of your wife, and even irrational, by posing the question, "Who gives up a chance like this just because his wife is having a baby?" (Some people aren't keen on babies. At my first job, there were two women hired the year I was. One had a baby and took maternity leave during the second school year, and the other was to have a baby the summer that followed, with no need for maternity leave. The dean of our division, who was from my department, said to a table of 6  or 8 of us during lunch that the second woman had done the "wise thing, the moral thing" by timing her pregnancy for summer.)
You also wondered if staying back would put you in the spot of explaining at every future application that you're not a badly educated person. Your education will be evident on your CV. It might make you look like you're not dependable and not serious about your career, which is worse.
If you stay at the post-doc, I think an emphasis on the furtherance of your research there is a stronger way to frame the decision. When the baby problem arose and they offered you another year, you gave it a lot of consideration, and the opportunity to continue your research another year (at a top school) before having to take up the responsibilities of teaching seemed invaluable.
Although the job people said asking to delay by another year would kill the offer, you could explore the option of not teaching your first term and doubling up on teaching the second next one. You could move the moment the baby is born, and then, by arrangement, stay home a lot writing up what you'd done at the post-doc. Another possibility is wrapping up your lab work at the post-doc a month early, moving before the baby is born, and finishing the post-doc from the new location, collaborating on data analysis and writing.

Thanks for the input. I agree with most of the stuff you wrote. Indeed, spending a second "care-free" year as a postdoc would be nice. But I do believe I'm ready for the tenure-track position. However, you claim that nothing is a good excuse "except a better offer". Can this be true? I mean if I was to get a better offer from another university (probably meaning that I went for a formal or informal interview), is a better reason than having a baby?

@electrique, I think he meant it is a "better reason" not in the sense of "a more honorable reason" (which it surely isn't) but in the sense of "a reason more understandable to the average faculty member", i.e., more people imagining themselves in your shoes would see themselves backing out of a job acceptance because of a better job offer coming along than because of having a baby.

Perhaps your answer is correct and some people in academia think this way, however many points are  wrong. Too much time spent on work will actually decrease productivity, as many studies have shown. The attitude that having a baby (especially if it is the mother) should not or will not impact tenure, is also unrealistic and wrong.

I meant to describe the prevailing attitudes and likely reactions the asker would face in The Great Competing, but not to indicate that I like them. I left an assistant professor job, which felt like jumping off cliff, and went to grad school again in a field where my first degree was helpful, and a door-opener.

By the way, I think we agree about the value of ostentatious hour-logging. I wrote “one of the most valued (or at least praised) qualities...” (emphasis added). I meant that no one really cares how many hours you work, as long as your work is good, but being perceived to work hard shows that you yearn to earn tenure in the department, which is a way of praising senior faculty, for which they will praise you and give you sweets.


text:
PhD student with mental health issues and bad performance
One of my PhD students told me during a supervisory meeting that they have been struggling with anxiety and depression and self-referred to the university psychological support. They asked me not to share with anyone and I didn’t.
Moving forward eight months and their penultimate year, their performance has declined to a degree that they might fail the PhD altogether. I tried to support with regular meetings, breaking tasks, teaming with other students, nothing seems to help pick up the pace.
Normally, at this point, I would set in place a special process: an independent committee is set to review progress regularly and set objectives and I’m only one of the three members. This is the formal process and usually works very well to address the progress issues but also puts more stress on the student because there is a stick at the end: the committee could decide to remove the student from the PhD program.
So, here is my trilemma:

If I go on with the process, I don’t know what this will mean for the student’s health. There might be a note on their record from the psychological services to instigate special treatment, but I’ll not know beforehand.
If I discuss this with the support team in hypothetical terms, it would be very easy to understand which student it is since my group is small and that student is the only one I have in that particular phase of the PhD. This would violate his explicit request.
If I don’t do anything, the certain outcome is that the student will go unprepared to the viva presentation (if they manage to prepare a thesis) and fail.

Anyone has experience how to deal with a situation like this? Any resources?
Update: After laying out the options to the student, they decided to leave the program. It seems this was something they were planning for even before my talk. I am not sure if the plan to leave the program was also a contributing factor to the bad performance or luck of effort.

You might consider seeing some sort of university psychological support yourself if available (for example at my institution it would be the Employee Assistance Office) - they'll have confidentiality in mind and might have some better tips for you. At least at my institution their scope includes workplace/management concerns which would seem to include your situation.

Maybe lack of performance simply is because he does not want to finish any longer. It can look like depression but it simply is a choice to not finish that has come creeping.

Is it possible in your program for a student to take a medical leave of absence that would pause the clock while they seek treatment?  If this would be an option for a physical illness severe enough to threaten progress, it ought to be possible for a mental one as well. Also, please be aware that depression and anxiety are incredibly common among PhD students - I'd say a good 50% of students in my graduate department had one or the other to some extent.

@A.Leistra There is the option, yes. But the funding would also stop during that period and they would have to find job, etc. I can keep the scholarship “on hold” for some time while they go on leave. I think the money is a problem here. Getting a job would probably not be much more relaxing in this environment.

Is there any low-demand way the department or university could keep the student employed while on leave, maybe teaching/assisting lower div courses, working in the library, doing clerical work? The student might be grateful to temporarily be relieved of academic obligations while not being excluded altogether from the university community.

@ElizabethHenning I will investigate this option but I’m not very confident there is. The student is now paid from my startup fund (thankfully, because if it was project funded the stress would be much higher). There might be provisions for special cases, but I have never heard of a similar case (maybe due to privacy).

Keep in mind that funders see the student as an investment, and letting the student take a time-out to repair is a better use of sunk funds that blowing the whole thing by the student failing out. Friend of mine a medical student had a fairly major breakdown in his last year after his housemate suicided (Med degrees are brutal...) and they let him take up to 2 years(!!) off to recover. He came back in a year later and finished with flying colors. Better that than waste the quarter million dollars the scholarship sponsors invested

@Shayne I understand your reasoning but I’m not sure if it will work. The “funder” is my startup fund. So, I can indeed hold the scholarship and be flexible. However, the student works in a very hot and fast moving area. Already one of the ideas (minor one) proposed in the PhD was published by another group. A two-year gap would see the student returning to a totally different research landscape.

Regarding point #2 (discussion with support team): I presume that there is a similar review process for any Masters students who perform poorly? Most support teams don't know the intricacies of such processes for each type of program. If you are also advising Masters students, you might be able to get away by omitting the fact that this a PhD student.

Be forthright with the student about what they are facing. Explain the various contingencies. They may be unaware or ill-informed. You could ask them which path they would prefer you to take... True, they may not be the best judges of their own best interests, or may not be able to act, but you can ask.
In particular, probably you indeed should not share information that you'd promised to keep confidential, short of issues like potential self-harm or harm-to-others. At the same time, it may be that your university has fairly strong guidelines about your supposed responsibilities in a situation like this. At least try to read up on them... whether or not you think it is humane or wise to comply. I suggest that you keep in mind that the university will be "covering itself" legally, first of all, with concern for students and faculty somewhat subordinate... so it is non-trivial to see what the truly best action will be.
In any case, I think it would be good to avoid allowing a disastrous thesis defense to occur, especially if there is no room for a second attempt (as at my own university). Being late but doing ok is vastly preferable to being on time and catastrophically failing...
No, I do not mean to suggest that laying this out for the student will magically transform them... but that it is fair to inform them of consequences of this and that, and ask them what route they'd want you to take.
And, by the way, is "removal from the program" merely (!?!) loss of funding? In my university, it is possible to continue to register (after everything but thesis and defense are done) without cost... and, thus, without necessarily having financial support from the program.

It might be worthwhile having a chat with the department chair, or a dean about the professor's legal obligations. As a non-university example, I, as a manager at a national lab, have legal obligations to the lab that may overrule requests to keep quiet about some things. Sharing health/mental health information within the management team as needed to deal properly and fairly with people's performance would be one of those situations, where the management team would know it is privileged information. You want the university to do the right thing for the student.

A disastrous defense could also be disastrous for the OP's own career, depending on where they are in the tenure process and other factors.  It doesn't reflect well on your capacities as an advisor to knowingly (or unknowingly) let a wildly unprepared or inadequate student do a defense.

Thanks for the comment. It's a good idea, but should I lay these options to him in a 1-1 meeting? I don't feel qualified to handle things if something goes wrong. Removed from the PhD actually means remove. Never happened before, but it's in the committee's arsenal.

@electrique, well, there are two slightly different routes open to you. I understand that a 1-1 meeting would be stressful for you... but/and things are "going wrong" on their own. A slightly different option is to get official info (dept chair? suitable university office?) on "approved" procedures... which likely will less involve you, actually (in the U.S.). But the student may simply be unaware, or in denial.

There's a sort of middle ground, which is to say to the student that the formal process (the review committee) is being implemented - after all, helping a struggling student to complete is surely the whole point of this - but asking them whether they would like you to notify the committee of the mental health issues that they had previously discussed with you. Not that you should be the go-between here - if the student chooses to share this info they should probably authorise uni psych services to talk to the committee.

@Flyto, yes, in fact, at my U.S. university, the faculty being a go-between is seriously contrary to "correct procedures"...

It can be incredibly difficult for a student to discuss any sort of health issue with his/her advisor or committee members and yet doing so can make all the difference.
Personally, I left my PhD program after two years rather than discuss my ongoing health problems with my advisor.  I deeply regret that decision.  I knew my advisor and committee were unhappy with my progress and I simply could not bring myself to talk to them about the health issues which were behind my lagging performance.  By opening a dialogue with your student you may be throwing them a lifeline, a chance to open up and communicate about the relevant issues and find a solution.
To this day my former advisor has no idea that I was, and am, seriously ill and struggling with debilitating health problems.  I "lose" at least one full day per week to illness.  In graduate school losing a full day every week was a substantial liability.  I am considered legally disabled and yet never shared that information with my advisor or department because I was scared about how they would perceive me and how it would affect my career.
Last year I finally received my M.S.(but sadly no PhD).  The only way I was able to do that was to work with my university's student disability services office.  Does your institution have an office for disability services? I would strongly encourage your student to seek their assistance and you may also want to consult with them and seek their advice on this issue.

As someone who was the student in a similar situation, I can speak from personal experience about what I wish my advisor and program had done (what they actually did will be omitted here to protect the guilty). My experience was in the US, so there may be some differences elsewhere.
If you are debilitated by a condition that impairs your intellectual functioning, it is difficult if not impossible to think clearly about the future and make good decisions. The student is evidently aware that things are not going well--as I was--but may not have the physical or emotional resources to be able to seek out options and plan ahead. This is compounded by all of the usual emotional stress and guilt of underperforming in grad school. The fact that the student brought it up to you is a cry for help, and you are doing the right thing by trying to act in the student's best interest.
Although it might be the case that the student really does not want to finish the degree (or isn't "PhD material"), it's impossible to tell as long as the student is sidelined by disability. So your first responsibility as their advisor is to protect the student from any future academic consequences for failing to perform now. This may involve your school's disability office, who might have standard accommodations for this situation. It may also involve working with the department to ensure that the student's current performance is not used as a justification to penalize the student if they later resume their program.
Your second responsibility is to do what you can to provide the student with some options to take a time-out and recover so that they can function well enough to make a good decision about when and whether to resume their program. From what you've said, the student seems to be dependent on the university for their living expenses and possibly also their healthcare as well. If this is the case--especially if you believe that the student would have difficulty finding or holding a job--the humane thing to do would be to offer some options so that the student can still be employed by the university and continue to have access to healthcare.
I emphasize that the student's health issues are ultimately their business and their responsibility. But since the student entrusted you and your program with their academic future, I believe that as the student's advocate in the academic world, the advisor has an obligation to protect the student in a situation where they are unable to fend for themselves.

I absolutely agree, on general human/humanitarian grounds. However, the advisor should be a bit cautious if their actions (according to their university's CYA policies) are out-of-bounds. Also, depending on the nature of the mental health issues, the advisor may find themself in the cross-hairs of those issues (as I have, myself, with several grievances filed against me by people I was trying to assist... because they decided that I was, in fact, the source of all their problems, while, in fact, I was the only person still willing to deal with them... )

Also, for formal clarification, my own university strictly forbids me from sharing any FERPA-type information with anyone at all... so in principle I am in violation of FERPA if I talk to anyone else about what a student has told me, ... with any details adequate to identify them, for sure. The only "clear" path is to bounce everything out to some office... somewhere... A similar thing is now in place for sexual harassment stuff. Legally safe, but inhumane. Watch out.

@paulgarrett Totally agree about butting in beyond your bailiwick and especially about violating FERPA or medical privacy. The OP is considering referring the matter to a committee to formally evaluate the student's progress, which would treat this as an academic failure. I think this is counterproductive and needlessly punitive, since it will go on the student's academic record. It is completely reasonable for the advisor to recommend that the student suspend study and offer some possibilities that would smooth that into a constructive experience.

I completely agree. The technical issue is about doing this in a way that is both "institutionally" correct and serves the student... which is, in my experience, far trickier than universities' official policy descriptions. Dunno...

It is a very very important problem which is much more common in academia than is usually thought..
There should be opportunity to make a break in PhD, say for one year, for getting adequate health treatment, and then continue.
Some universities allow this (e.g., in Netherlands).
If problems persist for eight months, it means university psychological help does not help.
The person need to see a doctor, psychiatrist, who would prescribe suitable antidepressants.
A PhD adviser is not a mental health professional, but to give advice to see such a professional is a wise thing to do.
A person could lose years, sometimes dozens of years, because of depression..
As a cautious remark only: At the same time, sometimes depression is due to inability to accept the reality. Was the person strong enough to do science and fulfil PhD studies before having health problems?
If yes, antidepressants or other professional treatment will help.
Otherwise, maybe to try to find work which do not require PhD?
After PhD, nowadays there is almost no chances of permanent employment in academia: years of postdoctoral research with even higher level of anxiety. It may be better to stop earlier.

Was the person strong enough to do science and fulfil PhD studies before having health problems? – How could you possibly mark the point before such mental-health problems? Many people suffering from such issues go on for years before seeking any help.

+1 for suggesting the student explore other providers

Wrzlprmf, well, I partially agree.. slightly modified the post, thanks for the correction. As for the last remark, about doing science, its not the main statement of the post, still I think it is important to mention and to bear in mind.  Staying on this track, in academia, will be more and more difficult for mental health. Now or immedeatedly after PhD he has chances to move to industry, after postdoctoral research chances are actually lower and psychological pressure will be even higher. There is overproduction of PhDs,  advisers should know about that and inform students about perspectives.

I'm not going to downvote, but your answer and comment seem to take the point of view that students with disabilities are less desirable or less "competitive" in academia. This is a discriminatory stereotype that worsens the obstacles people with disabilities already face.

Elizabet, I spent 15 years in academia and I am sure it should be organised differently. It is not good even for a healthy person. Yes you can declare that students with disabilities are equally 'desirable', but this is just wishful thinking... If it would be so, in this particular case university should come up with an effective solution, e.g. one year break with some additional funds involved from some special insurance sources...It is a reality that academia is not a good place for people with psychological difficulties. It would be good if a person would be advised to consider alternatives

Yes, just considering acceptable alternatives (to PhD) might take some stress/anxiety off the student and actually improve the "PhD results".  Still, the OP doesn't contain much information about the student to be confident, so I expect personal advice from a mental-health professional would still be very valuable (not necessarily with any medication).

@Alex I don't see how this argument is different from the old argument that it's better to hire men because academia is not a good place for women since they get pregnant and have extra childcare responsbilities, etc etc. People have a right to equal access and it's the institutions that are required by law to adapt.

@Elizabeth, it has no relation to this old argument because nowadays its common for either parent to get parental leave. So in terms of children both sexes are equal. 'right to equal access' sounds as wishful declaration. Access to what?  Each Master student and Phd student,  healthy or not, should be instructed that 90% of postdocs will not get permanent employment. Representatives of industry should be regularly invited, etc. Psychologists should be trained in this way.. Currently the problem of mental disorders due to academic stress is merely hidden under the carpet of nice declarations

To add to Paul Garret’s answer:
It is a common feature of many psychiatric disorders that those suffering from them fail to seek help when they should, be it because they do not notice or cannot make this step. This even applies to those who are aware that they are generally suffering from these problems and have sought help before.
Therefore the most important thing to do seems to be to talk to the student and find out whether they got all the professional help and support they need, more specifically:

Share your observations on their performance.
Tell them that you are worried about their mental health and have the feeling that they are currently suffering from a severe episode, phase, etc. If applicable, tell them that you feel they need professional help if they are not consulting it already.
Ask how you can help them. If the PhD programme or your university have specific mechanisms to accommodate such students (check before), offer to help them to make use of them.
Ask them whether they are fine with you consulting with others about the issues in general (thus breaking anonymity indirectly at best) or specific terms.

Since they confided in you, they should be okay with this; they may even have confided in you so you can keep an eye on them from this perspective (without telling you).

I think it's worth pointing out that it is very likely possible to "save" the student. The argument being that the student was already pre-selected by the admission committee and hence likely to succeed, including being able to overcome their present difficulties. You also note that their performance has declined, so in the past they did perform better. Therefore the student was at some point in time capable of succeeding. A talented person does not become untalented easily, but it is not uncommon to lose motivation to apply that talent. In a situation like the one you describe, I would suggest that not squandering the talent is important enough to go to lengths in restoring the student's motivation. So I would recommend against allowing the student to wash out: The third option would be equivalent to this, and the second option as well if you feel that the independent committee is unlikely to give the student a fair chance. Moreover, sunk cost fallacy notwithstanding, much has been invested in this person already - it is best for everyone if they turned things around and succeeded, rather than failing.
Your student has already taken the correct first step of seeking counseling. You don't mention the type of counseling, but it's worth looking into support groups with other graduate students. I think the most useful thing with regards to the student recovering is being able to share the burden with other students - some people are fortunate in that they are good enough friends with others in their group or fellow students in other groups, to the point where they feel comfortable commiserating and seeking serious advice. I will go out on a limb and predict that your student does not have many good friends who are also graduate students. If your university's counseling unit provides support groups for graduate students, this can effectively bootstrap the process by getting the student to meet with peers in a confidential situation, obviating the slow and difficult process of learning to trust a new friend organically.
However, if the defense is months away, I think it is best abandoned. Some people, with proper help, can just "snap out of it" - but many cannot. Usually there is a lot of mental crud that needs to be processed for the student to go from being crushed by stress to becoming determined to overcome it. With proper support it would take about 1-2 years. If the student is really far gone, it may be advisable to take a break for a few months (such as a leave of absence). After that the student will need time to recover, and after recovering they will still need to bring their thesis up-to-date and prepare or re-prepare for the defense. I don't think you can count on all this happening in 8 months. It's certainly possible, and if you have no option of postponing the defense (such as due to funding) then it's worth a try. But if you have the luxury of time the odds improve significantly if the defense is at least a year out.
For handling the immediate situation, your university may have an Ombudsman or similar office (perhaps human resources would be the place to start) that provides advice for such situations. This may help navigate matters like negotiating with the committee.
With regards to the impact of the process, if done appropriately the impact should be positive. There's a lot of variables, such as the student's precise state, the feasibility of the goals set, and the attitude of the committee. However, there is nothing wrong with having a stick. The stick is your friend. The challenge of graduate school is great, and difficult to overcome with only a stick or only a carrot. You really need the combined effect of the two. Withholding the stick would be a disservice to the student. Of course the student must be ready for it, otherwise instead of perceiving the stick and moving away from it, they will perceive a wall of sticks surrounding them and give up entirely. This is why it's important for a counselor experienced with graduate students to work with the student first. After the student has regained some measure of stability, they may be ready for the formal process, or it may turn out not to be needed after all.
A useful thing you could provide here is to freshen up the carrot. It would seem obvious that finishing a PhD is much better than failing. But to a depressed or anxious person, impostor syndrome can paint some wild pictures of their future. They will always want to imagine themselves to be the one legendary failure. However, there are certain facts that even impostor syndrome cannot easily obscure: Statistics about unemployment for PhDs, incomes, skills, accomplishments up to now, and so on. You are in the best position to see these clearly in your student. You can approach the subject constructively by framing in terms of the student's career plans. These should be seriously considered anyways in the year preceding graduation. Likely the student feels they have no career prospects or hopes at all - but the fact is that this untrue. Even a failed graduate student still has above average skills and talents, and above average career prospects. To say "there's no job I could possibly get" is unrealistic, surely there is something, even if depressingly low status. You can start there and gradually move the target up based on rational, objective indicators such as skills, job descriptions, etc. I've heard of people bringing their resume to the university's career advisor, and saying "if I didn't do anything else, how bad would be the job I could get?" Often it is really not that bad. And then you realize you don't have to do nothing, you can do a little bit to improve your situation, and the job prospects get a lot better. And if you improve a bit more, it's even better... And that's how you end up to deciding to just finish the PhD, defend it properly and be done with it. So explicit planning of post-graduate career plans can be very helpful, possibly critical, here. Indeed, why bother finishing PhD if not for the things you would do with it after? I suspect your students has thought little about what they plan to do once they receive their PhD, they are too busy thinking about what they'll do if they fail.
Of course, this must be done with a measure of prudence. An already distressed person cannot easily have a robust discussion about career plans any time. They must be mentally prepared for it. So you have to approach the subject gently. Hopefully, you have enough experience and knowledge of the student's character to gauge this.


text:
Pass/Fail decisions on 1st year PhD report
At my university in the UK, candidates doing a full time PhD (3 years) have to submit a 1st year report which includes literature review, the "gaps" that will be tackled by the doctoral work, expected outcomes, research methodology, Gantt diagram of the future work, the completed training plan, and some preliminary experiments (if any).
The supervisor makes a report about the performance of the candidate (training, attendance to meetings, etc.).
A committee of faculty members (excluding the supervisor) reads the candidate report and the supervisor report, and examines the student on the content of the report and challenges the topic, etc. It's like a mini-viva. The committee is called to make a decision if the candidate is able to complete the PhD in the next 2 years or not. If the answer is not, then the candidate gets another chance in 2 months and if they fail again, need to leave the program.
My question: How can one make a decision about the ability of a candidate to complete a PhD from their performance in the first year? I have seen people struggle in the first year and then do amazing work and vice-versa. Questions like "the ability of the candidate to perform novel work" cannot be answered after the first year.
I am early-career faculty.

How frequent is a "fail" decision made? How often is a "pass" decision made and the candidate isn't actually finished on time? I would expect and hope that the answer to the first is "seldom" and would also expect that the answer to the second is "(pretty) often".

Also, are you a student in such a situation, or faculty needing to make such a judgement?

Part of the ability to do novel work is to identify novel work to be done. At this point, all it seems like they’re asking is for a research proposal. If the research proposal is required in the first year, and in that proposal they ask you to identify a novel idea, then based on the programs requirements that is the bench mark they use to determine if the student can complete novel work. What’s not important is the truth claim of true ability, but the truth claim of true ability under the constraints imposed by the institution.

@Buffy The failure rate in my department is 20% at the first year exam. I don't have the statistics about the second question though. Some students get medical extensions, or have a final viva deferred, etc. I am young faculty.

So should no review of progress be made?

@GrayLiterature Identifying novel work to be done does not equate, in my opinion, to the ability to do novel work. Also, many ideas come from later on trying to do something, failing, and finding a better way. In my limited experience, I prefer to err on the student's side. Thus, if not sure, support the pass argument. This led to at least one candidate reaching 3rd year and giving up because they couldn't cope and another one struggling. In both cases, the other member of the committee suggested fail.

@JonCuster I don't claim this. I'm asking for the experience of other people in similar situations and how they deal with this. I believe a better person to judge is the supervisor rather than a committee spending few hours. However, this puts too much power on the supervisor and might lead to other issues.

It’s not my place to make a judgement of truth on actual ability, but from what you’ve outlined, what matters is the judgement of ability on the constraints placed on the individual by the institution granting the PhD.

This looks somewhat like a PhD candidacy proposal that you'd find in many programs in the US.  It's not uncommon in my experience for a student to be told to go back and revise and resubmit the proposal, but flunking the student out of the program would be unusual.

When a candidate enters a program, the admissions materials are intended to help a committee and/or an advisor make a prediction about successful completion. If they are sufficiently conservative, then the predictions, when positive, are fairly, but not absolutely, reliable.
This interim analysis has the same purpose. We, the faculty, need to make a prediction of success. The sorts of things asked for in your description seem fairly well focused on that. The real question, is, "is this a serious student" who is currently "doing the right things" that will lead to success - probably.
But, if the student is really doing research, then, just as you suggest in your addendum, it is impossible to predict with perfect accuracy. True research can't be scheduled and the more you learn, the more questions should arise.
So, while the pre-admission judgement should be conservative, I think an interim judgement needs to be more "liberal". That is, the benefit of the doubt should be given to most candidates if they are actually working. But the combination of the student's answers and the advisor's judgement should be able to find situation in which a student really isn't serious and is just wasting their time. I would think that 20% in this category is too high, however, and might indicate a failure of the system as a whole or the admissions process. Perhaps after the two month review it turns out a bit less.
But getting advice about life choices after a year of study seems like a good thing, as long as the student has a chance to explain what might be the reasons for an apparent lack of progress. And getting faculty advice about getting back on track, is also probably a good thing for those few having problems.
As I noted in the comment, I would also expect that a fair number of students for whom success was predicted don't, in fact, complete on time, due to a variety of factors, some personal, but many also related to the uncertain nature of research itself.
After all: “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” ~~Albert Einstein

As suggested by @Buffy, at least in the departments I've been a member of, it is unusual for a student to fail their first year viva at the re-submission stage (although more common for the first submission to fail). The first year transfer fills a number of purposes:

Guide the clearly unsuitable to alternative life directions. I work in a molecular biology department, and we once had a student who didn't understand that DNA makes RNA makes protein.
Make sure the student has a project to call their own. This is often a good time to identify students who are just working on whatever their supervisor feels like that day as a technician and not working towards their own project. I once knew a student how had co-authored a Nature paper (among others) fail their first year review because they were just filling in holes in their supervisors work-force and didn't have their own project. Another warning sign is that the student can't explain their project - suggesting the project isn't really theirs and its more the supervisor's project.
Its a good time to identify problems in the student/supervisor relationship. Is the student being properly supervised? Are their signs they are neglected, over-controlled, bullied or led astray? If gives them an invited opportunity to make the committee aware of problems they have with their supervisor. Conversely, a supervisor  can confidentially tell the committee of worries they have about the student, which can allow the committee to bring something up without damage to the student/supervisor relationship. I remember once a student was late to their viva because they were scared their supervisor would be angry about them being absent from the lab. Big. Red. Flashing. Warning. Sign. right there.
Give the students something concrete and consequential to work-towards in what could otherwise be  a very unstructured time (and possibly the first unstructured time the student has experienced). It forces them to read the literature and think about what they want to do. In this way the first year viva serves the same pedagogical purpose as many assessments - it focuses the student on what is required of them and motivates them to work hard on those things.

The UK isn't the US, and students don't have 6 years to spend time finding their niche. As you pointed out, students have 3 years to complete their degree. If you have no plan for what you want to do after 1 year, you are going to find it hard to come up with  enough research to fill 250 pages and publish manuscripts before you run out of time.
There is another point to consider. UK departments are judged on their in-time completion rate. That is, the fraction of students that succesfully submit their thesis within either the funded period, or 4 years, whichever is shorter. Departments where this number drops below 75% are prevented from applying for PhD studentship funding from the government research councils that fund the vast majority of PhDs in the country. However, if a student leaves within the first year, then they are not counted against this number. Generally once a student has passed this point, a department will do everything in its power to ensure that a student completes within 3/3.5/4 years, including somethings they shouldn't (too much help writing the thesis, appointing "sympathetic" examiners etc). It is therefore very much in the interest of departments to ask students to leave before the cut-off if they don't believe they will complete. Indeed, in many places I've worked, it has been mooted that we are too lenient on students at this point, passing students who go on to struggle, when it was clear at the 1st year viva stage that they were going to struggle and it would have been in everyone's interests if they had left with an MRes at that point.

Actually, US students don't "potter about" and the statement is a bit insulting. The educational systems are just different. I suspect if I said that UK students don't "bother" to get a broad understanding of their field, it would be equally insulting (and invalid).

Sorry, that was not a good way of putting it. It was meant to be insulting - I actaully think the US system is probably better in the long run. But it was my experience when I worked in the states that US PhD students spent some time working on a range of small projects after they've chosen a supervisor, before settling on what their thesis topic would be.

That may be a local issue in some places. It might actually be advantageous. If your first research project is for your dissertation, you can stumble a bit getting going. I think UIUC starts CS students out fairly early on research, though on smaller projects. It may not matter much in math, but it might in something like CS.

I think it is advantagous. In the medical school where I postdoc'd, students would spend time helping others with there projects, and undertaking small pieces of research. It gave them time to get to know the specific subfield and its techniques well and come up with a good project. But in the UK this just isn't possible with the 3/4 year time limit. By the time you are in a position to come up with a well informed, feasible, project, its generally too late. Hence most projects are created, or at least very heavily influenced by the supervisor.

In fact, I think we could all do with spending more time pottering.

Hmmm. I'm retired, so my whole existence is pottering.