Overview of rewt

Hi S81,

That is hard to answer but I would think that the proposal isn't big enough for a PhD. I would start at the literature review and make clear there is a gap in knowledge that you can solve. Base the proposal of that literature review, not the methods, so that you are focusing on answering a question. While also explaining why you need to answer the question. It sounds like you need to improve the proposal and show that there is enough work for 3 years of work. The idea itself could be amazing but you need to sell it to the department.

Hi Zena,

You have a toxic supervisor, no doubt about that. He should be mentoring you but and not constantly belittling you. I would try and change supervisors if possible but I know circumstances can make that hard.

Though a few things might be useful; like what year are you, is he like this with everyone in the lab, do you have other supervisors?

I am sorry for the delayed response.

I am in a very similar position to you; 23, engineering, north of England, FOMO, procrastinating but unfortunately no girlfriend. The only thing I can recommend is to decide what you want to do with your life. We can't do/have everything and sacrifices need to be made to achieve bigger things. To me it sounds like you want everything and failing at everything.

Seriously, I would sit down and decide if you want the PhD. You wanted a PhD enough to apply but now you know more about what it will actually require. Determine your priorities and stick to them.

Also about sports clubs, it is only awkward if you make it awkward. Just join and go about normally, there will be an element of you being the older guy but most people won't care that much.

I think it is hard to judge a supervisor from the limited contact you have during the application process. Just go with your gut feeling and don't over analyse it.

Though one thing I would consider is the lab/ wider research group or if the supervisor has any other PhD students. I am in a research group of one, which is massively frustrating. While you will have more support if a supervisor who has a couple of students and post-docs, though the supervisor may be distant.

If you will be their first PhD student, run away, seriously.

Hi Zimmerman, you are not alone. Most PHD students go through the same.


So what that you did a PhD for other reasons. Embrace that reason and make it your own. Not everyone is married to research and you don't need to be to finish a PhD. Most people will go into industry after finishing and do


A PhD is not all about labwork, sure it is important but it is a means to end. You are doing labwork to discover X or investigate Y. It is just one skill a PhD student needs among; ability to analyse literature, critically analyse literature, design experiments, analyse results, communicating those results, time management, writing skills amoung others. I don't like lab work either but I do it to get results so I can do other things. So don't be down because you aren't great at one thing, try and be good at one other things a PhD student has to do.


I totally know the feeling. The only advice I can give is, is stop thinking and do. If you zone out and do some tasks, you break the procrastination cycle. You may start feeling more confident and can do more. The first step is always the hardest.

Congratulations on submitting! You have done very well to get this far. Take a break you have earned it.

Having not submitted myself I may not be the most helpful but want to bump this as this might be me in 2 years. Though there isn't much you can do until the viva which is like 3months away? So sort out your life and organise your future (and take a holiday), worrying will not help you.

Your arguments against yourself are very persuasive, now make some arguments of why you deserve to call yourself Dr. You are self aware enough to see your flaws, so just think of counter arguments. Research your examiners, learn what they are interested in and if possible what their opinions are. Ask your supervisor what his opinions are and what to do. You have a patent and data so hype it up. Most people get amendments and you have to be very bad to get a straight fail.

Hopefully someone else can be more helpful

Only cite something, if it is relevant and scientifically credible. It is doesn't explain the methodology and isn't reproducible you can ignore it, most other people will.

Honestly, that sounds like you over complicated the job application. They wanted someone for one year because they either a) only had enough money for a year, or b) wanted it to be finished with in a year, or c) it was a trial job for something permanent. If it was b or c you over complicated the job, with the post-doc application.

So to answer your original question, it is not the agency's fault. Probably someone just as qualified with simpler demands also applied and got the job. But there are plenty more jobs out there, don't be disheartened by this.

Honestly give the project a go and give it your best but only work 40 hours a week. Try and make it work while looking for another job. Keeping the PhD makes financial sense and is ethically okay to stay on the PhD if you are at least working on the project (in my opinion).

I am still lost.

You saw a job at a government department and got an interview for the job. At the same you thought the job would be a good post-doc idea. So you started organizing the post-doc with that department funding the post doc for after your job ended. While assuming you had the job.

But you didn't get the job. So you are now asking if that same department will now reject you post-doc funding. Is that right?

It is only a transfer report, I have seen some awful reports pass the transfer stage. They aren't asking you to complete the PhD, just be good enough to pass that first report. If you pass, you will do something a lot of post-docs will never, get a lecturer job :) Seriously you are doing better than a lot of us here.

Honestly, you need to decide if you want to continue with your PhD. Don't think about the alternatives, think are you enjoying it and will it be worth it. A PhD is a lot of work and effort that needs commitment, so you either want to do or you don't. Once you decide that everything else will be simple.

I know what it is like doing a pointless project, I worked out 6 months in that the concept was fatally flawed and that all I would be doing is confirming that. Though I enjoy the work, the research areas, the 70hour weeks, the stress, the mostly useless supervisor(s) and the low career prospects. Yet I enjoy it and can't think of a more job (though more money would be nice). So I have slowly changed my project to something that will lead to publications while not stressing me out too much. What I am trying to say is, take control and re-find that passion that lead you to a PhD in the first place.

Also amendments are common, don't be dis-spirited, you would rather get that feedback now than after 3 years of work. Also have you taken a holiday to clear you head and realise what you actually enjoy. Burnout/second year blues is a period that can be easily solved, with some time out/relaxation. Also what is causing the stress, can you reduce it? Do you think the project is unrealistic and causing your stress, if so have you talked with your supervisor?

I might be coming across harsh but I seriously think you need to stop focusing on hypotheticals. You are capable of doing a PhD, so whatever you decide, you will be okay.

You are right, I should start the paper now. I think most of the interesting results will be ready by the time I finish writing the first draft of my current stuff (I am a slow writer). I will include them if they are ready but will submit anyway. Though I am going to make clear that I am doing the extra work anyway, even if just for my appendix.

My supervisor wants to go for a relatively good journal that readily accepts this work but is notoriously slow. So I can just include the later data in the revisions. I just feel a bit uncomfortable submitting something I know is not my best work and has clear flaws, just to speed up the process. Unfortunately that is academia, got to make compromises somewhere.

Thanks for the advice, sometimes I get stuck in my won thought chamber.

It depends on the software used to detect plagiarism. At my university most people in engineering scored up to 20% and the department followed up at 40% plagiarism. Some of the software is pretty clunky and if several people write in the same poor academic fashion, the system thinks you all cheated. They look for word associations and if you do the " the equation clearly shows .... which means .... resulting ..." they will see similarities and flash plagiarism.(I have had lots of fun reverse engineering plagiarism software (I earned my 2:1 without cheating!!!)) The OP has still not said what he/she did (and i hope they don't for anonymity sake) or even what section it is in.

There can also be methodology sections that if lifted verbatim with referenced, that get seen as plagiarism. It is easy to sub-consciously copy someones introduction when sleep deprived. Also if the software is badly configured references get flagged. What I am trying to say plagiarism is not cut and dry. And that the OP deserves some advice on how to save his degree.

pm133, I am an eternal optimist (until my PhD at least) and want to see good in people. Unless they do clearly do something wrong, I give people the benefit of the doubt. It is has occasionally failed me but it has done me alright as a whole. Also, I would rather be treated by a doctor who has made mistakes before but learned from them, than a doctor who claims to be perfect. So giving people second chances even if they did do it on purpose, is the way to go. Would you not want to be treated the same?

Hi Guys,

I know this is not the typical problem posted here but a very relevant topic I think.

Somehow I have got some initial results that are slightly publishable. I think that I should do another 1-2 months work of lab work to round out the paper and get something that will make a good thesis chapter. As I can repeat the method with different starting reactants and hopefully find a nice trend or prove that the reactants are comparable. In my field using several reactants and comparing is normal for what I am doing.

The problem is my supervisor thinks I should just try and publish what I have now, otherwise I will have too much data. She believes that it will take 6 months to publish anyway, so better get in early and start the review process. She is rushing me to write something but I don't think it will be a quality paper, as there simply wont be enough data. I would rather do some work and do it right.

Should I just listen to her and write something now or this an issue I should fight over? I have had a lot of disagreements over the last few months on a range of issues, and I want some other opinions. I can elaborate more if necessary.