Overview of rewt

I think there are differences in ambition and independence. Like a research associate is the typical post-doc with a set project and supervisor but freedom of work. While an assistant is told exactly what to do and hands over the data to a supervisor. Though a post-doc fellowship is an opportunity to do your own research with minimal supervision, you also have your own budget and more is expected of you. A post-doc fellow seems very cushy and you have a lot of scope to develop your own interests and skills

Again, not an expert and my uni mostly has a post-doc associates and post-doc fellows with very few if no post-doc assistants. The research assistants usually have a Masters but interestingly enough most of the technicians have PhDs.

pm133, I completely agree that there are issues and misunderstandings at the start of any relationship. You both start with different expectations and preconceptions and the aim is to build a productive relationship. Your example is very poignant in that we don't know what we want at the start of the PhD and that things will change.

Though I think one of the stages of any PhD is realizing your supervisor is only human. I read the OP's original post and thought the supervisor was acting normal apart from the monologue dissing their abilities. As the OP defended themself by saying how independent they are and that the supervisor has backed down, now thinking they should keep their distance. I am not saying the OP should keep him as their supervisor (if it is not working now it probably won't work later) but from an outsider I see clear cause and effect.

This might be a bit late but you can just say that it isn't your data. He will understand that means you can't promise authorship and can decide appropriately.

EDIT: I started writing this before I saw pm133's post and I agree with him

You started a PhD and the first thing you say to your new supervisor is you want his help on a project that he isn't involved in. He rebuffs you and says that you should develop your skills first in a very negative way (which he shouldn't have), to which you rebuff him. He then realises you are independent, so gives you minor suggestions and gives you space. You are then perplexed by him giving you space and not being supportive, when you implied by your actions that you don't want or need him. He might be sending mixed signals but so you are you.

To be honest you sound like you will succeed regardless of your supervisor but a student-supervisor relationship is give and take between both parties. There is nothing wrong with knowing what you want from a supervisor but you should also be prepared to give. You can probably reset this situation with some diplomatic words and talk about how you want to progress in the future. He might be feeling the same way and a frank discussion about what you expect from each other.

If you are self funded you have plenty of options and it is more on you to decide what you want. If you want to stay with your supervisor tell them that and say you will follow them. If he gets a new job at a new university, the university will mot likely not reject you. You could also look to have him as an external supervisor at in Liverpool or at another local university. Self funding brings a range of opportunities and it is rare for a self funded PhD student admission to be rejected. I think the best advice I can give is work out what you want most and follow that. Your PhD is changing regardless and you will need to be flexible in this awkward situation.

Have you talked with your supervisor(s) about the closure? They will be equally affected and will know a lot more about your options than us.

At my university the two campuses were relatively close (1 hour drive) and most people moved. Reportedly a few students moved to other universities with their supervisors but for the most part it was a good transition. There wasn't any campaign to stop the move as it was outside their control and most people just accepted it and tried to do the best for themselves.

Honestly you will need to ask the universities directly. As eng77 said, they expect a bachelor or relevant experience, which is considered on a case by case basis. Though the admissions departments are usually very fast at replying and are very helpful. Goodluck and sorry I can't help more

At our university they had the great idea of announcing the decision nearly 2 years in advance. So PhD students that were near completion could finish and newer ones got moved. What year of your PhD are you in?

Thanks Tudor_queen, that is perfect. I want to do something very similar but my supervisor was hesitant (she believes in the traditional format) and it is good to know other people have done it.

Academia is based on meritocracy and though there is snobbishness towards former polytechnics, they will respect you if you do good research. I think the trick is do good research, go to conferences, publish, make good connections, get more publications, post-doc at a better uni, do more good research, succeed. You do have to work harder than students at more well funded universities but you should focus on what you can do (good research!) instead of missed opportunities.

This happened at my uni, I am at the main branch and they closed the satellite branch. They set a cut off date and you either stayed until you finished or were moved to the other branch. Literally one day 15 PhD students turned up. I think something similar will happen with you, either you will stay or be expected to move. Though London to Liverpool is a big change and I would talk with your supervisor about their thoughts. They might not want to move and you could probably follow them.

I felt the same way when i started. Which is why I took so long to post, as I am still not sure if I have resolved this issue myself. The main thing I can say is you are not alone and quite a lot of PhD students have similar problems at some point. Impostor syndrome and loneliness are too major issues with postgraduate reserach that only get mentioned after you start feeling them.

My advice is be brave and just put yourself out there. Once you do it once or twice it becomes easier and you rebuild confidence in yourself. It is easy to build a wall around your work as you wait to perfect it but the best way to improve your work is to show it to other people. Generic university conferences or department conferences are great ways to share your work as the questions are not too difficult and rather generic. Also talking with every research student you can find helps in the long term. I know more people in other departments than my own and you can rebuild your friend network. Losing old friends is part of life and the only real solution is make new friends.

Tudor_Queen, did you use the discussion chapter to talk do a meta analysis of your work or just discuss the work in general? I am thinking of doing something similar but not sure if I can use that discussion chapter to make new conclusions or do I have to stick strictly to my chapters.

Not to sound unethical but are you sure that this guy is manipulating data? This is a serious allegation and your colleagues appear to have casually accepted it. Have they not had the same ethical conundrum? I also find it hard to believe that these people are just handing over data and are not asking questions about it changing. The others here are right on how to go about changing supervisor but are you making this decision on hearsay?

Again not to sound unethical but I think this is a lot more common than people think and something needs to be said about it. I have tried my utter best to replicate some high tier papers and cannot replicate their results. My results are always 10-15% lower and I have tried other papers that also have impossibly high figures. Fortunately my work is a novel combination of two different projects and such I don't have to compete directly with previous literature. However there is pressure on other researchers when publishing to be better than previous works, that may be fabricated, and causing ethical people to struggle. So once someone is unethical it is easier to also be unethical than to call out that first person.

If you are a early career researcher, in order to publish you have to compete with unethical people or perish. My supervisor has asked me to "polish" my data once or twice and I have flatly refused. Which in hindsight has made my PhD a bit more difficult as I have had to push the novelty of my work that bit harder instead of just being incremental. I honestly believe that a lot of "super star" researchers "polish" data, at least occasionally, because they always seem to get 1-2 high tier papers from every grant. Which is simply not possible as research is inherently risky.

Or this might just be me projecting my own insecurity about my lab skills at 11pm on Monday night.

This is a really delicate issue and I do not envy you. I am just curious what is the relationship between Departments A and PT, in particular your current supervisors and the new ones. As if you can make the supervisors talk between themselves about this, it takes you out of the middle. I also think you should consider your PhD funding. Is it internal funding, your supervisors funding or a direct grant? As if it is the first two options, you don't really have a say and is a good excuse to turn down department PT.