Hi there

Can anyone suggest a detailed tutorial on how to successfully interpret regression output in R for a model that has an IV that has 3 levels (e.g., conditions A, B, and C)? I am very familiar with running linear models in R but up to now my categorical IVs have only had two levels (e.g., male/female, low/high). It's simple to interpret the output when this is the case. But when there are three levels to the IV it is rather confusing.

I have had a search and read about doing different types of contrast coding to help you interpret the output, but I haven't managed to find a tutorial that is really clear and that I can actually follow and use as a guide to interpret my output. If anyone could suggest one, or provide steps on how to do it, that would be great. Thank you!

Ps. I realise this isn't a stats forum. I'll post on one eventually if I need to.

Yeh it was really subtle but happened once or twice. I don't even think I noticed when it happened (though I knew I'd come out of our meetings feeling like crap), but then it would come to my mind hours or even weeks later, like huh, she said that?!

I hadn't thought of this when I first read your post, but it does remind me a bit of my own experience although it's different. Be careful that you don't allow this person to undermine your confidence. What stands out / raises question marks is that they are being critical beyond the realm of your work. I remember my old supervisor commenting or suggesting things that weren't to do with the work (eg. my appearance) and it didn't feel right, and that's when I began to realise I needed to get out of that supervisory relationship as soon as possible. Their comment about your stress / exercise may be nothing, but since you mention it here it sounds like it is significant.

I may be reading into it too much, but thought I'd mention it anyway. And I'm not suggesting that you need to switch supervisors (although you may be relieved if you did!). As the previous poster suggests, you could just knuckle down and develop an ultra thick skin. But at minimum, when they criticise beyond the realm of the actual work (ie. you as a person, your lifestyle etc), you might want to challenge it - even if it's just a confident "excuse me?!" that lets them know that you don't find this acceptable.

I can access this. Letting you know here so the post can show as resolved. Please pm me if you want me to email it over to you. :-)

Congratulations! That's great news!!! You must feel so relieved.

Hello there,

This sounds like a tough situation to be in. I'm not really sure if it's handwriting on the wall. But if it were me I think I'd actively be enquiring about the possibility of switching labs. Because even if your supervisor changes his tune (perhaps he is one if those ones who likes to negatively motivate his students as they call it - bit of an oxymoron), I guess the question is, are you happy to continue being supervised by him? Can you live with his supervisory style? The answers might depend on how much work you have left to do before you can submit, and on whether you've managed to identify another potential supervisor and switching is an option (eg they agree etc and your funding allows it).

If the assessors were happy with your work then that says something. I suppose to help your confidence, and to be able to make a judgement about how seriously to take your supervisor's judgement of your work and career prospects, it would be useful to get another opinion, perhaps on your more recent work.

Tudor

Yes, that's what I thought. But I'll have to check more as I wouldn't want to if it looked bad (assuming I actually was in such a scenario). Also people do have multiple grants on the go. Maybe one could be deferred if it came to it. Or both projected carried out simultaneously but over a longer period of time. Thanks all for your input.

Thank you Nead :)

Hi there people who are in the postdoctoral stage

Is it wise to limit the number of grants you apply for in case by some freak occurrence you are awarded more than one grant or more than you can take on? Or is it better to just go for anything you can since it is so competitive that the former is not really going to happen?

Thanks!

Also, have you done a masters before, or an undergraduate research project? It is very much like that, only all your time is spent on the research rather than it just being one module or component.

Sounds a good idea. Hope they will agree. I can't see why they shouldn't agree. But if they don't then they should at least provide a reason.

Maybe if you don't hear back from the email in a week you could try calling? They might be out of office though due to the pandemic.

Good luck.

It all depends on what you want to do, but I know that jobs like medical doctors, nurses, speech and language therapists etc, are always recruiting. Oh and teachers. So vocational training is a good idea (I am guessing this is your motivation behind applying for medical school).

But you have existing qualifications already - so have you tried applying for jobs that aren't necessary what you trained (e.g., science writing / editing - just a random one) for but that require a degree (the transferable skills idea)?

And I would add that based on whatever information they have about you, they obviously think you're capable of learning the techniques. Funding is very competitive, especially at some universities. They wouldn't award funding to a candidate they thought wasn't up to it. Congrats by the way :)

I guess it might be because your degree was quite a few years ago. How about something like:

Dear Admissions Team

Thank you for your recent email (below). EXPLAIN ABOUT HOW YOU APPLIED AND THE RESPONSE YOU GOT. ASK IF YOU COULD SUBMIT A SAMPLE OF YOUR WRITING INSTEAD.

Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards