So Pineapple, what is my point with all of this?

Yeah, supervisors can be A-holes. They can be unfair, demanding and downright unreasonable. However, its important to be honest and see if the student is contributing to this particular equation.

Ask yourself is the supervisor JUST critcising you, or is open season on everyone? Is there anything you have done/ not done/ could have done better or are you working pretty much as expected. How are other PhDers or postdocs treated? Could you be in the position of the lab "runt", who is somewhere down the lab pecking order? (unfortunate, but happens too often).

Anothing thing I wonder about is the emotional upset you mention. A lot of supervisors don't handle personal issues well (no training, maybe not that way oriented) and may see that sort of breakdown as unprofessional or evidence of not being able to manage at a doctoral level, and this can lose respect in the eyes of the more traditional hardcore academics.

I guess I can contribute from the other side of the fence. As a defacto supervisor (my PI is in the states and I am basicallly supervising his PhD students) I would say I am quite harsh, as most of you can probably imagine.

However, I am not indiscriminate in my criticism. There are two types I normally go gunning for. The first type of student are the ones that are genuinely taking the piss. Turning up at luncthime and leaving at 3pm. More time gossiping in the canteen than in the lab. Saying they will do work but never getting it done. Those that consistently turn in very poor standard of work (esp. lots of errors, or sloppiness).

The second type are the ones that never take previous suggestions on board. This is the worst type, and co-incidently seem to be the ones that aren't the brightest among the PhDers. There are about 3-4 of these in my department and I dont rate any of them making it.

As for the OP I think the answer may be in their own question. The type of girl with the same values, same culture and background may not be interested or compatible with someone who is setting out for an academic life.

I guess its a question of knowing what the goal at the end is. I know mine, and I realise that I had to do this or I couldn't ever be happy. My stint in the non-academic taught me that. So for me I have to accept the sacrifice I made, and accept that I may be alone because my working practices (isolation, insecure working, poor pay, high workload and pressure) are not that conducive to relationships or family life.

This has got me questioning about whether it is the PhD itself that is the relationship breaker, or is it the sort of person that does the PhD that is the key factor.

I always thought it was the stress of doing the PhD that made my ex-girlfriend (a taught doctoral student, not PhD) leave, but looking around my lab, I see people (including me) that have put our careers/ research ahead of our personal relationships. Maybe its these sort of people that are attracted to this line of work, and may have had complicated relationships in anycase regardless of where they were working.

If that is the case, I think its a decision we made ourselves, and we need to look into ourselves to see what the problem was. My ex actually said this just before we split up, but I couldnt see it at the time. However, seeing it my lab and reading threads like this have got me thinking about it.

One word of warning.

Its easy to confuse qualitative research with playing around with "out there" ideas and having an "anything goes" attitude. To succeed in any branch of psychology be (social, clinical, neuroscience) requires the application of rigour, following a clear methodology and being able to think critically (not the same as just slagging something off).

Sure your epistemiology may not always be based on logical positivism like the natural sciences, but it still has to be internally coherent, fit some sort of model and persuade an audience of peers.

The sort of maverick that challenges existing theories, critique and provide credible alternatives is always welcome in psychology. The type that brandish unsubstantiated, ill-researched ideas that provide nothing new tend not to go too far.

So you are running a dairy as well as doing a PhD.

Thats going to be tough, with the cows, milking and cheesemaking on top of your research.

Actually it would count highly under transferable skills and make you far more employable both within academia and outside.

Interesting similar thread that shows how strongly people can feel about this.

http://digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=799191

2) It tends to show the users insecurity. In my observations, the people that do insist on being called doctor are unfailingly the ones that have personal insecurities. Or that they have had such a hard time they want everyone to know they "earned their spurs" the hard way. My ex supervisor used to write notes to the milkman signed "Dr" and he always made sure everyone knew about it at any occasion. That REALLY put me off using my title in a non-academic context.

3) I am wary about those that do flash their credentials. The likes of Gillian McKeith and almost every big brother talking head has cheapened the designation. Francis Wheen says it best with the examples of Dr Kissinger and Dr Paisley, that "people who insist on being called Doctor might as well have 'This man is dangerous' stencilled on their foreheads."

I think there is a lot of truth in that.

I am against using the "doctor" title because:

1) When you do use it, and you aren't a clinical doctor there is all too often a conversation that goes like.

"Oh, Dr Badhaircut? Are you like a GP or you work in a hospital?"
"Uhm, no, I have a PhD. I do research in a university"
"Right? So you arent a real doctor then, that cures people"


Basically, I learned its the fact that you treat people is the part that earns the respect, not the advanced study or research. What was worst was my ex girlfriend who got a clinical psychology doctorate around the same time as I got my PhD, DID get all the respect because she had "patients".

In answer to the question "What was I doing to come across that site?". I was looking for thesis + motivation for one of my PhDers who is basically sitting around the canteen all bloody day long when there is a pile of data he should be going through.

I actually think that a rich foreign student with a tame supervisor (and pliable external examiners) could buy a thesis and get through the system because there are no "objective" markers of progress in a PhD. Sure it may not be published but the standards between unis and departments are so varied I can see how it would be entirely possible for this sort of thing to go ahead.

I am absolutely flabbergasted.



You can pay someone to do an entire PhD for you. I know this happens for undergrad essays but how bad is it when PhD students have to resort to this?

One way around it would be to work part time while writing up. A lot of people do this while writing up (I did) and it didn't slow me down too much.

That way you show some willingness to contribute to household expenses, but at get an imposed structure about writing up too.

Also be aware that industry experience is valued both in academia (for the contacts around alternative sources of funding) and in industry itself (the track record of real world work).

If I had the option, I definitely would have worked "in industry" before doing my PhD as I would have had the option to do other things.

If I were you I would go for the job. Its harder to break back into work once employers think you are overqualified. Also PhD projects are always going to be around, but with the economic changes good jobs in pharma may not be.

In general, its easier to go Good Job- PhD than PhD- Good job

Quite the opposite.

They have "used" you, by having them you providing them with cheap labour. At a wider level, they have also set up the system so that the majority of PhD graduates HAVE to leave academia because there aren't enough jobs for them. You owe them nothing, and you have done them a huge favour by being the bottom rung of their little power games.

Its right that there is politics and backbiting everywhere, but in only in academia its such petty and trivial matters. In the city you will be fighting over $1 million deals and peoples livlihoods, rather than the petty "authorships" of papers no one in the real world gives two sh*ts about.