QUOTE(Critical_Fallacy @ Jun 24 2015, 11:42 PM)
And the lesson to be learned here is to pick a well-regarded supervisor who does not spend too much time leaving the campus and missing supervisory meetings. Most PhD students prefer to be supervised by professors with a
good reputation whose name carries weight when they write references. Before selecting a supervisor, be sure to do research on the available staff or talk directly with individual academics and other PhD students to measure the
prudence,
responsibility, and
diligence that is expected from the prospective supervisor.

QUOTE(babyJab @ Jun 25 2015, 09:17 AM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
true.
i made a mistake by thinking that i personally knew the person, took it for granted and thus left a memorable scar in my phd journey.
in fact, i was quite disappointed with the school. but damage had been done, no turning back now. i dont want to waste my 1.5 years for nothing.
so keep struggling, keep the faith, & believe in myself that i can PHiniseD it!

Sorry to hear about your previous issue babyJab. I would say that in hindsight, when you think your supervisor is not meeting your needs you could have seeked out some students from different supervisors or the admin office to discuss your options. And when you finally decide to change supervisor, you could have done that through the office as well, without resorting to some final b***s***t with her. But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.
Anyway, I have a different opinion on supervision - it also depends a lot on the student's personality itself. My Master's supervisor was away most of the time (travelling, sabatical etc) of my study and we mostly communicated through email. Which was mostly fine with me, since I know mostly what to do and just need her to sign off on purchase and other admin forms. But she was also very supportive of my work and sends me to conference and overseas attachment. So different styles of supervision for different people.
For my PhD right now, my supervisor was actually a brand new research group leader setting up his group. And I was the first person to join it - there was no one else to ask for comments or reputation to check out. I decided to join as I was highly interested in the project and personally I"m quite independent and don't require constant supervision. But turns out that he like to keep a tight leash on supervision and we have weekly face-to-face meetings. It was a bit unnerving at first from what I'm used to but I've gotten used to it.

So I think the advice of looking for a reputable supervisor while generally good, does not necessarily apply all the time. I think it's analogous to other professions e.g. doctor etc where if everyone only looks for experienced folks and don't give the newer ones a chance, how will the newer ones gain experience?