Naturally, I can tell by your writing that you are feeling really upset about this. However, I might be missing something here because I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying. But I am not out to disrespect you, because it almost sounded that people who do their PhDs directly after their degrees are horrible lecturers. And I know you would like to resolve this in a way that is fair to the students. Could it be another reason that lead to the student complaints? It would really help me, if you could tell me what the students had complained, so I can understand better.

In this thread alone, I’m sure you find everyone is different, and naturally, people choose to get a PhD for a variety of reasons, including:

• for the prerequisite to becoming a professor
• for future professional opportunities
• for the delay of getting a job
• for the pursuit of knowledge
• for fear of “the real world”
• for the love of research
• for status and acclaim
• for an ego boost
As the PhD students work their way through the settling in process, they will identify their goals and objectives in the big picture and then break things down into several tasks. The research competency can be categorized into Mechanisms and Procedure that are necessary to achieve the objectives of the tasks and the experiments. You can imagine children connecting the dots, dot-to-dot on the dot pictures, where the mechanisms are the dots, and the procedure is the steps the children take to join the dots correctly to complete the big picture.

MECHANISMS
You probably already know that designing a suitable experiment to test a hypothesis takes ingenuity and skill. Whether the experiment requires sophisticated equipment or not, there are a number of features that are common to all well-designed experiments and the students should know about this:

(1) Discrimination between different hypotheses
(2) Replicating the results
(3) Controls of variables
(4) Methods of measurement
(5) Blinding conscious and unconscious bias
(6) Accuracy and precision
PROCEDURE
In order to conduct an experiment to test each hypothesis, the students need to make a list of the things they will need to do to answer each issue. And this list they create will be their experimental procedure. This procedure should include the appropriate methodologies, technologies and equipment. For some types of experiment, a ‘control’ will be required to act as a reference.

(1) Prepare the materials & equipment
(2) Record the data
(3) Record the observations
(4) Analyze the raw data
(5) Draw conclusions
If they don’t yet know what exact area of research they want to pursue, or if their interests are not specific or focused enough, then they probably aren’t ready for PhD programs. If they want to pursue doctorates but are not keen on research, there are some other options available. But telling PhD candidates to write their research interests on papers will generally cause them to think critically about what they want to study and help make their ideas more concrete.
Sometimes we don’t find novelty features and unobviousness in their projects at all. Probably part of the overwhelming nature of the PhD degree is that there are many things to do at once, but if they learn to direct their efforts rather than get sidetracked and try to undertake too many projects at the same time, they can streamline the process and make their life as doctoral students much easier.

One of the things that would help them get through the PhD process more easily would have been a better understanding of what were expected of them. Although the only research they are absolutely required to complete in order to receive the doctorate is their dissertation, there is an implicit (and sometimes explicit) expectation that they must have at least a couple of publications before graduating with their doctorates.
Part of being a successful lecturer is being resourceful, especially when it comes to finding information or learning how to accomplish important things, whether in teaching or doing research. The same applies to the students. One of the Right Practice is to reason your way through a problem. People are confronted by problems every day and everything from coming up with a meaningful keynote presentation at work to a PC malfunctioned at home. How they think their way through those problems is what matters and will largely determine their level of success.

Perhaps the reason there are rubbish lecturers is that they were given rubbish training from rubbish universities by rubbish staff themselves. Easy admission into a postgraduate degree is a factor, as you mentioned. I can only speak from my experience in Australia with Monash University. Most students who have completed their undergraduate degree will be required to show some competency in research/work experience before allowed to enter a postgraduate degree.

I also believe that only elite universities in a given country (?) with world-class pedigree in research, sufficient facilities/funding and a well-structured PhD programme should be allowed to confer PhDs to students. Seriously, PhDs are becoming cheap these days. It is unfair to people who fought hard to enter a world-class grad school and worked thrice as hard and contributed ten times as much to knowledge to graduate with a PhD. It is only these people, these passionate, intelligent people who truly care for their field who deserve to have a PhD and teach future undergraduates.

If you were to do grad school in a prestigious college without a real passion for your field, you will not survive. Monash University makes sure you pass several checkpoints each year and constantly assesses your competency, where the lack thereof will result in you getting kicked out in your first year. The Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences where I'm from is ranked 6th in world and takes its research seriously. They live and breathe high-impact  journals. Only novel and high-impact research is undertaken by students and staff alike, which is how it should be in all institutes that award PhDs, the pinnacle of the education system.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the 3-year system. PhD graduates of Monash University (3-year system) are encouraged to do at least one post-doc before allowed to lecture, which I think is a great idea. The people who lecture in my faculty are mostly demi-gods of their field so I think it is unfair to blame the 3-year system.

In short, PhDs should only be awarded by institutes able to carry out internationally-recognised research with a good PhD programme in place. This way, these universities will be compelled to pick only the most passionate, the most intelligent students for their graduate programmes. They will filter out the wannabes by careful assessment of their research competency, by interview and by recommendation. The filtration process will then also continue throughout candidature to root out bad apples. The staff will also be on their toes to produce the best graduates and to do good research, because only world-class staff can produce world-class research and PhD graduates. Perform or get sacked.

However, it will be an advantage to you in the future whereby the interviewers will be impressed with your performance because you were allowed to directly convert to phd without going through the master level. I guess only the good one will be allowed to direct to phd candidate.
One of my friend supervisor has been boosting about how good is his student because he is able to complete his direct to phd within 2 n half year. The truth fact is this supervisor is aiming for professorship that required his to release one phd student. This has contributed to the difficulty to other students under the same group bcs the supervisor channelled all the grants and focus on the research carried out by this spesific student.

I understand what you're saying. It does suck when you've excelled and earned your testamur through and through and find that someone with sub-standard competency has the exact same certificate. I agree that my suggestion was radical and will probably never be implemented anywhere in the world but it gets you thinking as to what PhD graduates should really be like. Should we really have these pseudo-experts in our education system and trust them with our country's undergraduates?

I hope I can understand the predicament you were in. We all have preferences & priorities. Moreover, there will always be some things that we will consider to be better than others. Most of us have opinions about what other people should do to take responsibility to do a good job, to get out of a difficult situation, or to make their life better.

Nevertheless, I’m sure you want the best for the people you care about most. But they can’t always see the benefits or the way of life that will come from your experience. In the end, they might not be the best things for yourself, let alone another. So let others do what they think is right for themselves. They maybe bad choices but that’s how people learn. Let them make their mistakes. And focus on learning from your own. Allow another to be, and they’ll want to be around you, charmed by your positive qualities.

It is not often a person is made to be accepted for who they are, when it comes to conflict. Most people shy away from conflict because they hate fighting. Sometimes, we get overwhelmed with all this and we want to stop. And you’ll probably end up feeling frustrated and resentful towards your “horrible” colleagues and some direct-to-PhD students. Conflict needs to be managed before it becomes a destructive force to both mental and physical.

Do you know that a lot can be learned from martial arts when it comes to handling conflict? T’ai chi & Aikido are by far the most useful and effective responses to an attack; they create a win-win situation. Martial artists understand the importance of taking action early. If they detect conflict in the air, they don’t become aggressive or avoid it. They stay calm and assertive. They take time to understand the real cause of the situation. They see the other person’s point of view. And they find an acceptable way forward. Simply put, they compromise!

However, make no mistake as compromise isn’t about lowering your standards or giving up your values for others. It’s about reducing your fruitless demands or changing your opinion to reach an amicable agreement. Compromise is wrong when it means sacrificing a principle. We all have standards. And if our minimum level isn’t met, it’s going to lead to disharmony. So strike the right balance! Take time to think the problem through and plan a constructive way to handle the situation. Go on, help yourself but don’t compromise yourself.

I'm a product of a direct 3 year phd studentship in the UK. I don't see myself beIng s slop

Yeap... and on top of that, you feel the burden with the Dr. title, if you are not up-to-date in your area of expertise. But I have seen many doctorates bullshit their way, when they don't know the answer. Just like any field, there are good "doctors" and lousy "doctors"...