University of Technology Sydney · Centre for Audio, Acoustics and Vibration (CAAV)
匿名 · 审核后公开
2.0分均分 · 1 条公开评价
公开评价概览
评价数
1
均分
2.0 分
点赞/踩
0 / 0
匿名表态 · 每个导师仅一次
学生评价
2.0分
## Benjamin Halkon PhD Supervision, Mentorship and Advisor Style The supervisory style was hostile, unpredictable, and frequently inappropriate. He routinely used condescending language toward students, including statements such as telling me to “grow up” during an email exchange where I politely disagreed with him about the papers I should cite. His feedback to other students included statements such as “this is the antithesis of what I am looking for” and “simply not got the time nor the inclination to wade through this degree of mundanity”, readily implying others lacked intelligence or competence, when he was incorrect. His ego appeared extremely fragile: whenever presented with errors in his work or technical contradictions, he became defensive, dismissive, and verbally aggressive rather than engaging scientifically.
I did not feel he was an expert in the field. He frequently made incorrect scientific claims and resisted corrections in order to preserve his ego, often insisting his work was “state-of-the-art” while refusing to acknowledge basic algebraic, conceptual, or methodological errors in his own published work.
Despite being reachable, meetings often involved emotional volatility and passive-aggressive behaviour. Students regularly avoided asking questions out of fear of provoking another outburst. Several of the students and staff I interacted with expressed concerns about his behaviour and described him as someone they preferred to avoid, and there was a general sense of discomfort around working with him. At my own graduation ceremony, the student to my side, whom I had never met before, expressed sympathy for Ben Halkon being my supervisor, stating, “everyone knows what he is like”.
His incompetence and unprofessional behaviour stood in stark contrast to my co-supervisors, and I cannot imagine how the PhD would have progressed without their support. Working alongside them made the disparity unmistakable and highlighted just how far his conduct and knowledge fell short of acceptable supervisory standards.
## PhD Student Expectations and Supervision Experience at UTS Expectations were manipulative and unstable, with the frequent moving of goal posts. He would agree on requirements (e.g., publication counts), then later revoke agreements and insist on additional work to serve his own agenda. At several points, he explicitly told me “I won’t let you leave” or “I won’t let you submit your thesis” unless I produced extra papers for him - work unrelated to my PhD and intended to cover tasks he lacked funding or time to complete himself. All of this despite me having a good publication count, including numerous Q1 journals. In conversations, he expressed views suggesting it was more practical for him to keep a PhD student on longer rather than seek funding for a post-doctoral researcher. His first post-doctoral student departed within the first year of a two-year contract, and privately indicated to me that they found working with him challenging.
These demands were not framed as academic development but as leverage, using implied threats of withholding supervision or slowing progress, regularly using phrases like “you scratch my back, I scratch yours”. Eventually his conduct became so difficult to tolerate that I reported Ben Halkon to both Higher Degree Research (HDR) and the Student Complaints Resolution Office (SCRO).
## Funding, Teaching Duties and Student Support Research funding was used as a manipulation tool. He falsely claimed that my scholarship was conditional on performing unpaid teaching, grading, and capstone supervision for him - duties that do not appear in my contract and that other students were paid for. After confirming with the university that his claims were untrue, it became clear that this was an attempt to coerce labour and suppress any challenge. Support was generally absent unless it directly benefited him. When displeased, he would withdraw supervision and delay manuscript review for months.
## Research Direction, Publications and Academic Guidance The research direction was heavily distorted by his personal motives. He frequently pushed unethical self-citation practices, attempting to force excessive citations of his own work into his students’ papers and my thesis draft, which came across as an attempt to artificially increase citations to his own work. When I followed standard literature review principles instead of prioritising his publications, he left emotionally manipulative comments such as “bit strange you don’t place more value on my work” and “half my thesis is on this topic and apparently not worthy of your time”; eventually sending me an email late in the evening telling me to “grow up” simply because I didn’t concede. His frequent self-citation was even flagged during the submission of my doctoral journal publications, hindering the acceptance of the paper.
He pressured me to act as an unpaid research assistant on projects irrelevant to my PhD, attempted to take ownership of my doctoral research, and aggressively stated many times that “it’s my work”, completely disregarding all the time and effort that I had put into things he simply could not have done. On multiple occasions, he told me to review manuscripts that had been sent to him, and the feedback I prepared was submitted under his name without acknowledgment. Overall, he treated me as though I was his research assistant there to make his life easier, not as a researcher.
## Lab Culture and Student Experience at CAAV UTS There was no real lab culture, only an atmosphere of fear and avoidance. Students often worked alone, and in my experience, many found interactions with him unpredictable or demeaning; in complete contrast to the students of my co-supervisors. Several students privately expressed distress or dissatisfaction but were afraid to escalate due to his reputation for retaliation and emotional volatility. Many of his posts in the lab Microsoft Teams group were simply rude and unprofessional.
When I sought support from HDR staff at various times over the candidature, I was repeatedly advised that escalating concerns could jeopardise my progress, which left me feeling discouraged from pursuing a formal change of supervisor. After some of these discussions, Ben made subtle comments that suggested he was aware of concerns I had only raised in supposed confidence with the HDR staff, which made me feel that the information I shared might not have remained confidential. Rather than HDR facilitating a supervisor change, the guidance I received left me feeling more fearful of possible repercussions and ultimately resulted in me remaining under his supervision for the duration of my candidature. It did not feel as though their advice was to help my doctoral progress, but to protect Ben. My biggest regret is allowing them to scare me into remaining under his supervision; I should have escalated matters to the Student Complaints Resolution Office and proceeded with a supervisory change.
I sincerely hope this review will prevent others from enduring what I, and many of his students, were forced to endure.
## Related links
The following public academic links are provided to help readers verify the identity, institutional affiliation, and research background of Benjamin Halkon:
- [Centre for Audio, Acoustics and Vibration - University of Technology Sydney](https://www.uts.edu.au/research/centres/centre-audio-acoustics-and-vibration) - [Benjamin Halkon - University of Technology Sydney research profile](https://profiles.uts.edu.au/Benjamin.Halkon) - [Benjamin Halkon - Google Scholar profile](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fvIcg_gAAAAJ&hl=en) - [Benjamin Halkon - Research Gate](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin-Halkon) - [Benjamin Halkon - ORCID profile](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5459-2329) - [Benjamin Halkon - LinkedIn](https://au.linkedin.com/in/drbenjaminhalkon)
The supervisory style was hostile, unpredictable, and frequently inappropriate. He routinely used condescending language toward students, including statements such as telling me to “grow up” during an email exchange where I politely disagreed with him about the papers I should cite. His feedback to other students included statements such as “this is the antithesis of what I am looking for” and “simply not got the time nor the inclination to wade through this degree of mundanity”, readily implying others lacked intelligence or competence, when he was incorrect. His ego appeared extremely fragile: whenever presented with errors in his work or technical contradictions, he became defensive, dismissive, and verbally aggressive rather than engaging scientifically.
I did not feel he was an expert in the field. He frequently made incorrect scientific claims and resisted corrections in order to preserve his ego, often insisting his work was “state-of-the-art” while refusing to acknowledge basic algebraic, conceptual, or methodological errors in his own published work.
Despite being reachable, meetings often involved emotional volatility and passive-aggressive behaviour. Students regularly avoided asking questions out of fear of provoking another outburst. Several of the students and staff I interacted with expressed concerns about his behaviour and described him as someone they preferred to avoid, and there was a general sense of discomfort around working with him. At my own graduation ceremony, the student to my side, whom I had never met before, expressed sympathy for Ben Halkon being my supervisor, stating, “everyone knows what he is like”.
His incompetence and unprofessional behaviour stood in stark contrast to my co-supervisors, and I cannot imagine how the PhD would have progressed without their support. Working alongside them made the disparity unmistakable and highlighted just how far his conduct and knowledge fell short of acceptable supervisory standards.
## PhD Student Expectations and Supervision Experience at UTS
Expectations were manipulative and unstable, with the frequent moving of goal posts. He would agree on requirements (e.g., publication counts), then later revoke agreements and insist on additional work to serve his own agenda. At several points, he explicitly told me “I won’t let you leave” or “I won’t let you submit your thesis” unless I produced extra papers for him - work unrelated to my PhD and intended to cover tasks he lacked funding or time to complete himself. All of this despite me having a good publication count, including numerous Q1 journals. In conversations, he expressed views suggesting it was more practical for him to keep a PhD student on longer rather than seek funding for a post-doctoral researcher. His first post-doctoral student departed within the first year of a two-year contract, and privately indicated to me that they found working with him challenging.
These demands were not framed as academic development but as leverage, using implied threats of withholding supervision or slowing progress, regularly using phrases like “you scratch my back, I scratch yours”. Eventually his conduct became so difficult to tolerate that I reported Ben Halkon to both Higher Degree Research (HDR) and the Student Complaints Resolution Office (SCRO).
## Funding, Teaching Duties and Student Support
Research funding was used as a manipulation tool. He falsely claimed that my scholarship was conditional on performing unpaid teaching, grading, and capstone supervision for him - duties that do not appear in my contract and that other students were paid for. After confirming with the university that his claims were untrue, it became clear that this was an attempt to coerce labour and suppress any challenge. Support was generally absent unless it directly benefited him. When displeased, he would withdraw supervision and delay manuscript review for months.
## Research Direction, Publications and Academic Guidance
The research direction was heavily distorted by his personal motives. He frequently pushed unethical self-citation practices, attempting to force excessive citations of his own work into his students’ papers and my thesis draft, which came across as an attempt to artificially increase citations to his own work. When I followed standard literature review principles instead of prioritising his publications, he left emotionally manipulative comments such as “bit strange you don’t place more value on my work” and “half my thesis is on this topic and apparently not worthy of your time”; eventually sending me an email late in the evening telling me to “grow up” simply because I didn’t concede. His frequent self-citation was even flagged during the submission of my doctoral journal publications, hindering the acceptance of the paper.
He pressured me to act as an unpaid research assistant on projects irrelevant to my PhD, attempted to take ownership of my doctoral research, and aggressively stated many times that “it’s my work”, completely disregarding all the time and effort that I had put into things he simply could not have done. On multiple occasions, he told me to review manuscripts that had been sent to him, and the feedback I prepared was submitted under his name without acknowledgment. Overall, he treated me as though I was his research assistant there to make his life easier, not as a researcher.
## Lab Culture and Student Experience at CAAV UTS
There was no real lab culture, only an atmosphere of fear and avoidance. Students often worked alone, and in my experience, many found interactions with him unpredictable or demeaning; in complete contrast to the students of my co-supervisors. Several students privately expressed distress or dissatisfaction but were afraid to escalate due to his reputation for retaliation and emotional volatility. Many of his posts in the lab Microsoft Teams group were simply rude and unprofessional.
When I sought support from HDR staff at various times over the candidature, I was repeatedly advised that escalating concerns could jeopardise my progress, which left me feeling discouraged from pursuing a formal change of supervisor. After some of these discussions, Ben made subtle comments that suggested he was aware of concerns I had only raised in supposed confidence with the HDR staff, which made me feel that the information I shared might not have remained confidential. Rather than HDR facilitating a supervisor change, the guidance I received left me feeling more fearful of possible repercussions and ultimately resulted in me remaining under his supervision for the duration of my candidature. It did not feel as though their advice was to help my doctoral progress, but to protect Ben. My biggest regret is allowing them to scare me into remaining under his supervision; I should have escalated matters to the Student Complaints Resolution Office and proceeded with a supervisory change.
I sincerely hope this review will prevent others from enduring what I, and many of his students, were forced to endure.
## Related links
The following public academic links are provided to help readers verify the identity, institutional affiliation, and research background of Benjamin Halkon:
- [Centre for Audio, Acoustics and Vibration - University of Technology Sydney](https://www.uts.edu.au/research/centres/centre-audio-acoustics-and-vibration)
- [Benjamin Halkon - University of Technology Sydney research profile](https://profiles.uts.edu.au/Benjamin.Halkon)
- [Benjamin Halkon - Google Scholar profile](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fvIcg_gAAAAJ&hl=en)
- [Benjamin Halkon - Research Gate](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin-Halkon)
- [Benjamin Halkon - ORCID profile](https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5459-2329)
- [Benjamin Halkon - LinkedIn](https://au.linkedin.com/in/drbenjaminhalkon)
No, I don't recommend this PI.