Anyone?!

The callibration question is a really good point - especially if your value are always out in the same direction (e.g. always too high).

Try using a different set of pipettes, but also do ask about callibration.

Hi Lara

How did you get on trying to see your supervisors?

Hope it's going well.

I've never tried, but I did once hear that it can be difficult getting a bank to recognise that a PhD stipend is actually a source of income.

Try:
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/prospectus/masters/msph.html
or
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/prospectus/masters/mscid.html

Please don't SHOUT, it's rude.

Further thoughts:
1.Govt funded PhDs are far worse paid than charitably funded ones.
e.g. in London:
MRC stipend starts £14,700, increasing 2.5% per year
Cancer Research UK stipend starts £18,500, increasing 6.2% a year

2. Consumables provision in PhD grants is laughable - MRC give £1000/year; average lab project costs lab £10,000/year.

3. In biomedicine, clinicians who take time out to do a PhD/MD have some kind of salary protection, so that they're not reduced to living off of the sums I quoted in 1. Thus it would seem that their research efforts are considered to be of value. Why aren't the efforts of non-clinical biomedical (and indeed any PhD student) considered of comparable worth? (I'm not having a dig at clinicians or saying they don't deserve the money. But it does represent a huge inequality).

missspacey covers a lot of important points. The fact that doing a PhD is effectively a full time job (actually more time-demanding than many FT jobs) is not reflected by access to pension schemes/NI contributions etc.

I think it's unfair that a stipend is a fixed rate regardless of your age/previous qualifications/experience. I don't see how it's fair that when I was doing my PhD, straight out of uni, I had the same income as another PhD student in my lab who had a Masters and 7 years of research assistant work under his belt. Why should his exptra experience be so devalued? I have a vested intersted in this question - I dropped out of that PhD and if I ever do another one then I'll be in my late twenties by the time I start!

Actually, one other qu - what's the difference between an MSc in Public Health and a MPH? I get the impression that the latter is more of a clinical professional qualification? I have a non-clinical biomedical background.

I posted this as a new thread elsewhere, but perhaps it would have been better to ask here:

I'm interested in doing a Masters in epidemiology or public health, but I don't really know how to choose between them. Looking at courses on offer, both appeal to me, and I'm pretty sure I would be happy doing either.

What I really want to know is: would choosing one over the other have any impact on future job/PhD opportunities? Is there any reason why I might end up regretting choosing one over the other?

Thanks

I'm interested in doing a Masters in epidemiology or public health, but I don't really know how to choose between them. Looking at courses on offer, both appeal to me, and I'm pretty sure I would be happy doing either.

What I really want to know is: would choosing one over the other have any impact on future job/PhD opportunities? Is there any reason why I might end up regretting choosing one over the other?

That's really annoying for you.

How about this:
http://www.postgraduate.bham.ac.uk/programmes/combined/chemistry/nano-materials-chemistry.shtml

or this:
http://www.findamasters.com/search/showcourse.asp?cour_id=12663

I think even if it isn't actually required for ethics, it's probably good practice to have documentation outlining step by step procedures that you're applying to your research. Firstly, it'll help focus your mind and make sure that your methodology is sound - it might help you to identify flaws/omissions that you might otherwise have missed. Secondly, when it comes the administrative things, I'm a firm believer in having a defined paper trail that shows what you did, what you didn't do, and why. It can be useful for all manner of reasons.

Try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Just to warn you that, unless you're very lucky:
1. Your PhD will not be perfect
2. There will be problems that no amount of planning could foresee
3. It will not be what you expect.

Not trying to put you off - just trying to help you to be realistic. It sounds as though you're hoping that if you arm yourself with enough knowledge and experience beforehand, all will go smoothly with your PhD. The reality is that a PhD is a huge learning experience in its own right, and there's only so much you can do in advance to reduce the challenges with which it will present you. I think it sound like you've done enough preparation.

Good luck!

You might not have a choice. I recently quit my PhD and, on applying for an RA post, discovered that I *had* to give contact details for my most recent employer (i.e. PhD supervisor) as a reference.

I wait with slight trepidation to see whether the reference I get will be any good!