I think I've managed to get it for you (up)

Just check I've got the right one: 'The relationship between oral hygiene and oral colonization
with Candida species in healthy adult subjects'??

I'll PM you it :-)

======= Date Modified 03 Jun 2011 09:04:44 =======
Thank you all - I'm still over the moon since hearing the news :-)

They just seem to have disappeared *insert evil laugh here* ;-)

My personal preference would be to phone and ask. I doubt that the person in HR will mention anything to the people on the panel, and it is the norm for applicants to know who is on the panel - so I see no harm in asking when this information was not supplied. Of course, thats just my own opinion & what I would do. Good luck either way (up)

======= Date Modified 01 Jun 2011 14:34:46 =======
I just wanted to update this post by saying a huge.................................

WHOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

*and breathe*

Okay, incase it wasn't obvious. I GOT THE FUNDING!! :-)

It's my dream PhD at my preferred university and it was all I wanted more than anything. Very very very pleased (and that's an understatement!!).

Thank you all for the support :-)

======= Date Modified 24 May 2011 08:35:06 =======

Congratulations :-)

Thanks for sharing - thats reassuring to hear. I'm certainly keeping my fingers crossed for some good news. It would be even more wonderful if I only needed to wait a week or so to hear it! ;-)

Do you know how far down the reserve list you were?:-):-)

======= Date Modified 23 May 2011 12:52:23 =======
======= Date Modified 23 May 2011 12:02:53 =======
Someone has just mentioned to me that '2nd reserve' status may not mean I am 2nd in line, but rather than I am in a '2nd reserve' category and there may be a whole list of '1st reserve' people ahead of me, not just 1 person. This sounds like it could be right - although I really hope not :(

Can anyone advise whether that is how the ESRC works?

ETA - I've enquired I AM second reserve, i.e. 3rd in line for the funding if you count the person who's orginally been offered it, so that's something. Now just got to keep my fingers crossed that 2 people turn down their offers...

======= Date Modified 23 May 2011 11:48:45 =======

That is very good to hear - thank you. I know I can't bet on that happening for me but it's nice to hear a good news story! I'm also very relieved to hear that you were offered the place within a week or so - I was imagining having to wait months and months but maybe I will be lucky.

I'll certainly be keeping my fingers firmly crossed...

Thanks for your response. I've literally just found out the news this morning and I'm feeling incredibly low right now. I know I should be grateful that I'm a reserve (and I am, because at least I have a small chance rather than none) but it's so disheartening as I feel like I've been trying to get a PhD for ages and keep getting knocked back. This is the closest I've come to getting one and it was my ultimate dream PhD so, as much as I tried not to, I really got my heart set on it.

Thanks for your suggestion, but I've already done an ESRC accredited masters course so I was only applying for +3 funding. I guess the waiting game continues...

I wonder how long people usually take to accept/decline their offers? I'm assuming I could be in for a long wait yet...

P.S... I will try emailing my proposed supervisor for some advice.

======= Date Modified 23 May 2011 10:16:38 =======
======= Date Modified 23 May 2011 10:16:26 =======
Hi all,

I'm devastated. I just found out that I'm 2nd reserve for the ESRC funding I had applied for, to study my dream PhD at my prefered university. I was really hoping for better news than that :-(

My question is - do I really stand any chance at getting the funding? It just seems so unlikely to me, knowing how difficult it is to get funding in the first place, that 2 people will turn down their offers.

Has anyone else had experience of being on the reserve list & what was the outcome?

I'm so tired of this waiting game... just to be disappointed each time :-(

Hello All,

My postgrad graduation is coming up in December and I've noticed the photography website (Success photography) states that you can opt to have 'touch ups' done on your graduation photographs for a small additional cost. Apparently they just touch up your complexion, brighten your teeth and the whites of your eyes.

Now I don't know what to do. I would never have specifically looked for a 'touch up' option if it hadn't been mentioned, but now I'm wondering if it will just add that 'finishing touch' to my graduation photos?

On the other hand, I don't have any problems I specifically want 'covered' (blemishes etc) and I would hate it if it looked like a bad photoshop job and it was obvious it had been messed about with OR they overdid the soft focus effect and made the picture look blurry.

So... I would love to hear other peoples' opinions?

If you have opted for this in the past - how did it turn out?

Thank you both, that's a relief because I had been leaning towards answer 2 so its nice to know I'm on the right track :)

======= Date Modified 02 18 2010 09:18:25 =======
Sorry for another design related question, but its hopefully a relatively straight forward one... :$

I'm reading a paper which has 140 babies as the sample. There are two test conditions - one were face stimuli is presented to the baby and one were they are presented with a mechanical object. The researchers are just interested in differences between which stimuli the female babies prefer and which the males prefer. All straight forward enough. However there are 90 girls and 50 boys, does this mean its an unbalanced design?

I know an unbalanced design is one where there are unequal participants in each treatment group but I can't decide whether this applies to this experiment or not.

I've got two ideas:

1.) Its repeated measures, so if the treatment groups are just 'face' and 'object' then there is the same amount of participants in each treatment group as each participant takes part in both conditions. So it is a balanced design??

or

2). The treatment groups would actually be defined as 'Girls-Face, Girls-Object, Boys-Face, Boys-Object' in which case there is not the same amount of participants in each group, so it is an unbalanced design??

Argh, does that make any sense? If someone could shed some light it would be much appreciated :-)

======= Date Modified 01 Nov 2010 12:38:32 =======
======= Date Modified 01 Nov 2010 12:37:56 =======

Yes, thats exactly right - its a split plot as we are working on the basis that it is not possible to randomise the temperature of the labs (technically, it could be done but for this example we're saying it can't). I agree with you, I didn't think the mice had to experience all 3 levels of the feed experiment but my collegue thought otherwise...

Thank you for taking the time to get your head round it & offer your opinion. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who finds it a bit confusing!

Good luck getting motivated with your PhD work, though if you are off sick I think you have a very good reason to watch daytime TV instead ;-)

======= Date Modified 01 42 2010 10:42:05 =======
Hi All,

Would someone please be able to clarify something that me and a collegue have been getting a bit confused over - what constitutes a split-plot design?!

So to use the same example that we were discussing - a researcher is interested in investigating the effect of food quantity and temperature on activity levels in mice. They allocate half of their mice to 'cold' labratories and half to 'hot' labratories. Within each lab, the mice are randomly allocated to one of three feed groups (small, medium or large feed).

Ok, so would this consitute a split-plot design OR do all of the mice have to take part in all 3 of the feed groups?

There seems to be different definitions of 'spilt-plot' depending on who you ask. So far I have heard the following definitions:

1. Subjects receive ALL levels of one factor but only ONE level of another. So in this instance, as the mice are only experiencing either HOT or COLD labs, then they would have to take part in all 3 feed conditions??

2. Two different experimental units. So in this case, we have lab as the unit for one factor (temperature) but cage as the unit for the other factor (food quanitity). So this definition does not say that all the mice must take part in each of the food groups?

Sorry if that is not very clear :$

Thanks in advance for any clarification!

Thank you both - I will email you now :)



Thank you for the suggestion. I actually have a copy of Ben's book and you're right, it's a good place to start.



That's a really good suggestion, I'll have a search for review articles today - thank you.

Lots of helpful replies - that's what's so nice about this forum :)