Signup date: 13 Sep 2010 at 6:14pm
Last login: 11 May 2022 at 8:10pm
Post count: 1875
I feel there's a a risk of a little confusion with the above. A couple of extra comments from me.
1) Are you at a UK University or at a University where the examination system is based on the UK model?
If so, you would not normally participate in exam panel selection. The University in consultation with your supervisors will select the two (one external, one internal) or three examiners (a third one may be included in the case of subject specialisation) and it is unusual for the candidate to be consulted. I hope given you have successfully appealed they will talk to you about this.
If you are being examined in the USA, then the student plays a major role in the selection of a larger examination panel. If you are in the USA, then as "tru" suggests, select carefully.
2) "Pjlu", I'm not suggesting major amendments by a further "once over". All I'm saying give it a read through to pick up anything obvious. It is a re-examination following appeal thus reworking is inappropriate until the outcome of the new examination is known. Asking if such a once over is allowable is fair comment.
This is a serious case of sit down in a pub with someone else who's been through the same thing. Didn't Marasp (I think) have to appeal?
The problem is most of us have not been in "appeals" territory.
Tree of Life, Tru,
In principle, I'd agree you shouldn't change supervisors and continuity of supervision when properly done is important to a successful PhD. I also agree it's largely between BeHappy and the new examiners and if she can have a say in who they are then all the better.
My concern was if I was about to resubmit then a further supervisory once over for the thesis might be wise, especially after a bad outcome that had to be appealed against.
A key point in the latter posts not pointed out in the opening post is that the second supervisor is a more helpful person. Using the second supervisor to give the thesis this last once over and to offer any further support and guidance seems to be the obvious thing to do. This should negate the need for a supervisory change.
I've compiled a few humerous tales I heard about during my time in academia if only to cheer up a few people, who may be feeling down for various reasons of happened to stumbled in from the pub at this time of night.
The link to these stories is at the below link - enjoy!!! If you have a few to add I will consider adding them with appropriate credit;
One brief addition to the above (sorry if I've been long-winded, the situation is hard to describe), was I did look at what action I could take over my treatment during that year. However, looking at the previous industrial tribunal and talking things through with an employment agent it was clear that the "closing ranks" situation I described meant it was my word against theirs. Always only launch a complaint as a very last resort.
That said, it did make me laugh after the fact that (no direct help to me as I wasn't a student at the time of my second post-doc) I found out the student union unofficially had a person "used to dealing" with difficult academics and the senior Prof. wasn't the only difficult academic at my "second post-doc" University. I was told of other cases similar to mine (one including a former colleague) and one small crumb of comfort is at least I survived to the end of my contract.
As Pm133 points out, "making a formal complaint and then announcing in front of the university authorities that you are terminating all contact with your initial supervisor" is also to me badly handling the situation and exacerbating confrontation.
There are people in academia who are ill-equipped to man-manage. You realise quickly more contentious characters who might be high impact paper-producers can be immune to disciplinary action due to Universities being more interested in reputation than recruiting decent people with good man-mangement skills. Only if a situation is extremely damaging might they dismiss more fractious people, with it being easier to close ranks and protect the complainant even if the complaint is justified.
Given my own experiences, that is why I say to the opening poster that if possible write off your experiences, learn from any mistakes you made and move on to a fresh Uni., a fresh set of faces and research project to start afresh. If you need to brush up your scientific English, so be it.
Post understood. As you say, posts must be taken at face value and my own past history as described below is an example why.
In my case "personality clash" was a big factor, though it also became clear I was employed simply to relieve the principle researcher's workload. They'd also changed their minds between me signing the contract and me starting, meaning we were contracturally stuck with each other (I was also financially trapped) despite me attempting to find another job. At my starting kick-off meeting, I was described as "very much a second choice, a stop gap measure". The senior Prof. looked at the principle researcher and said in front of me "we'll just have to make do" as though I wasn't there. I'd not yet done any work for them???
There'd been an industrial tribunal lost by a previous staff member against him, which made the local press and the case described had been nasty. On the basis of this I almost withdrew from the contract, but well meaning family members persuaded me the case was nothing to do with me. Only after I started did I truely learn about the senior Prof.'s formidable reputation and by then it was too late.
As regards self-blame could I have been more duty-diligent? I was doing serious hours and don't know what more I could have done. I was not an exact role match meaning mistakes (which I made) were always likely as I had to learn the job from scratch. They clearly needed someone already experienced in the role, which I wasn't. I lacked certain specific skills they needed; better had they recognised this and rejected me for their own sake at interview.
I learn't from the above a situation CAN be one-sided and regards my mistakes, taking the job in the first place was my career-damaging biggest when the warning signs were already there.
How far into the project are you?
If you're still within your first or even second year, would it not be better to gracefully withdraw and start afresh next year with a new University and new project?
I've seen enough fall outs in Universities to know they close ranks to protect there image and reputation. Other researchers are already towing the line and I'm sure the lab manager will be quietly advised to back down before long.
I've been at the wrong end of similar (second post-doc) and know that it doesn't end well. Even my own PhD supervisor talking about another case suggested that the University would close ranks to see off the problem. I also saw an unwanted maths lecturer basically relieved of all his duties until he finally got the message and walked. He was not sacked and coontinued to be paid, but had nothing to do except for a daily check of his e-mails.
If you are near the end, then perhaps trying to resolve through the proper channels should at least be exhausted and also talk to your student union. Once you involve a solicitor or even the University Ombudsman (very last resort), then you will see how effectively the University closes ranks.
You supervisor wants you out. Going queitly might at least give you a good chance of finding a new project at a different University. If you make a fuss, your name may be "mud" (i.e. effectively blacklisted) as far as a future supervisor is concerned.
Sorry to say all this but I've been there,
What image does your PhD supervisor expect you to present at conference?
If that's something you don't know then I would play safe.
As a man, I opted for shirt and tie (as much as I hate ties) and feel I made the right play if only to get the PhD position over the line. After that, I was able to work out what was the right clothing for each situation.
Mostly, no one cares and all is very casual but conferences and presentations can be more formal.
I suggest trouser suit unless you know what your potential supervisor expects, then once you have your foot in the door you case assess potentially formal situation on a case by case basis.
Okay, food for thought here.
My job hunting is proving fraught as it's turning out that my skills set was very specific to my last employer. Prospective employers, even if I was to stay in "Quality" (ugh) are all asking for different skill sets and therefore retraining is looking increasingly unavoidable.
Therefore, if I have to retrain then I would prefer to retrain to do something different and my gut instincts to say do a Masters to retrain is seemingly looking to me to be the right path.
The problem is when we opt to do PhDs, we focus very narrowly on portion of a field making us very niche. One employment agent who has looked at my CV has said directly I've done lots of niche projects, making me appear very specialised. Another difficulty is the PhD puts it in the mind of employers that Im going to move on the moment something better comes along as well as appearing too academic. That is depsite a substantial period in my previous "Quality" job.
My retraining idea may sound counterintuitive, however, if I can fix my core Engineering skills to make myself more attractive to employers then this seems to make more sense to me. The alternative, struggling to find a job I enjoy or doing a job I seriously don't enjoy (and now struggling to find even that), is not an enticing one.
There are two approaches I could take. The first is to go full time for a year to be able to sell my new skills set at the other opportunuity (student loans required, which I could live with). The second is part-time for a few years alongside a job (even a Quality one), however, there is a risk whathever job I take could pidgeonhole me further. I'm therefore erring towards option one, that being my "gut" and I've tended to do better when I've gone with my gut.
PJLU, if I can locate the extra "author" then I'll contact him for a copy of the paper.
It's not the qualification I want, it's a revision of my skills such that potential employers see me as more than and not just a Quality professional. I fell into Quality by accident rather than design for want of better words. If I take another Quality job now, that will be it. Going forward, it will be a Qualtity career and I find the related functions to it deathly boring. My original background is Materials Engineering, leaving me short of the skills to be considered a true Engineer (and thus having more options).
That said, I do understand your reasoning and yes, there is alot of uncertainty to come with Brexit, etc., and perhaps I should just be grateful to have any kind of job. "Work to Live" is fine, but I don't want 20+ years up to the point I retire doing something I quite frankly find boring. That said, it may well be my fate and the last few years in this profession called Quality has defined me.
I feel I should explore the options before writing off my pre-Quality life and all the work done during and after my PhD. I don't want to turn the clock back, just not wake up each morning dreading going into work and being bored out of my mind.
As per my comments to Bewildered, it's to reskill rather than another qualification. As it happens, I am looking at academic and research positions. However, finding something where I fit is difficult.
If in the past I've not been happy with a situation, my instincts have been to change it rather than just accept life as it is.
As mentioned elsewhere, I've reappeared here after a substantial absence, this due to a change in personal circumstances.
To summarise, it's long time since my PhD and post-doc. My second post-doc ended badly due to a dispute with a senior academic at a Uni. away from my PhD Uni., however, help from my former PhD-Uni. colleagues (via the book chapter I've mentioned on another thread) finally reset my reference history and allowed me to find a real world job as a Quality Engineer.
My intention was to stay in that job temporarily before heading back into a research career. However, family factors meant the job I was in became very convenient and I stayed in that job for a very long period. In the end, it became the perception of family, friends and former colleagues that Quality was my true passion, even when I said otherwise.
I was made redundant at the end of last year and looking at my CV, mooted returning to Uni. for a year and retrain to break out of Quality as a career. However, a former colleague said quite bluntly that I should be looking at professional and not academic qualifications at the stage my life is currently at (now late 40s).
Whilst I understand his reasoning, this approach presents a problem in that any professional qualification route would be Quality.
I'm faced with two options:
1) Follow my former colleague's well meant advice and pursue professional qualifications, knowing this would leave me pursuing Quality as a career; or
2) Take a risk of a further academic Masters qualification on my CV in the hope I can break back into something more related to what I want to do.
I have no passion for Quality as a career, however, the length of time I've done it plus the length of time since my PhD and other technical qualifications (i.e what I've learnt is "old", even out-of-date) seem to be pushing me in the Quality direction.
Masters DegreesSearch For Masters Degrees
An active and supportive community.
Support and advice from your peers.
Your postgraduate questions answered.
Use your experience to help others.
Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account
Enter your username below to login to your account
An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.
or continue as guest