Hi guys,

I have another question if you wouldn't mind helping me out. I'm doing a test for a company at the moment that essentially requires me to write a discussion based on two primary research papers I have been sent. In the brief I have been told to use ONLY the enclosed references, but they have asked that the discussion I write is properly referenced. So, some of the information I have put, like a bit of background etc has been referenced by these two papers from other papers. So would you reference these bits of information from the original papers or just from the two references the company I have been sent? It seems a bit odd to just have two references, but then it's not really scientifically credible to be citing articles I haven't actually read, so I'm a bit confused.

Any opinions???

Thanks, S x

Didn't get it. :-( Applying for jobs is just sole destroying. Totally ruined my weekend.

Ah well, hopefully something else even better will turn up. Wishful thinking and all that...........

Thanks again Delta and Bewildered x

Bewildered and Delta.... Thanks ever so much for your responses. I'm going to email them this morning...Wish me luck.... Although to be honest I'm not too hopeful, but it's worth a shot I guess.

Thanks again guys x

Thanks Delta. Out of interest, how would you word the email? Would you just go for it and ask if they had made a decision yet, or word in such as a way as to whether you could have an update on the status of the applications? I'm not sure what to actually write!!!

Hi Guys,

I just wanted to get your opinion/suggestions on something if you don't mind..... A few weeks ago (late January) I attended a job interview, which I heard back from about a week later that I has gotten a second interview for. The second interview was held abroad, although the job itself is based in the UK, and it all seemed to go ok. Anyway, at the second interview I was told that 4 other people plus me were having a second interview. That was back in the first week of February, and I haven't heard anything. Would you just assume I haven't got it as it's been so long or would you perhaps send a follow-up email, and if so what would you write? I thought that as there were only 5 candidates in the running they would have at least been able to send rejection emails/letters out after the second stage. Any opinions etc greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

S x

Sorry to gatecrash your thread Delta, I hope you dont mind. I was just wondering; my 3 years of funding is due to finish in January by which time I am hoping to have finished my lab work and have written the majority of my first draft. I am intending to start looking for a job straight away as I have no savings to survive on. Therefore I was planning on claiming JSA from January as I have a loan that I am paying off. I am living with my boyfriend at the moment in a flat we share, and he is happy for at least a few months to pay the rent and bills while I finish and get a job, but we think at the most we could manage for 3-6 months on his one income and (hopefully) my JSA. However, from some of the threads I have read it seems that my boyfriend's income will prevent me from claiming JSA, can someone confirm that this is correct? If so, I'm guessing my only option will be to move back in with my parents, and hopefully claim JSA untill I find a job? Can anyone confirm that this is correct?

Thanks guys

======= Date Modified 09 Nov 2010 16:10:10 =======
I went to a career event recently aimed specifically at people with PhDs. There was lots of talk regarding applying for jobs in academia, but there was always a lot of focus on applications for jobs outside of academia. There were lots of representatives from a variety of companies that said that even-though they didn't have specific entry level jobs for people with PhDs that they would most certainly take people on with PhDs for a huge variety of roles. Although this initial starter job may not be akin to an academic/ first post doc job, having a PhD would help you climb the career ladder. The take home message was that in applying for non-academic jobs where having a PhD wasn't particularly a pre-requisite for having the job, you need to focus on all the transferable skills; communication skills, problem solving, statistical analysis, team working, etc etc. It really annoys me on here when people basically say that having a PhD is worthless unless you want an academic career. There are so many people with PhDs that have jobs outside of academia and are doing extremely well for themselves. I don't want to work in academia when I finish my PhD, and I never have done, but I think that by focusing on skills gained whilst doing the PhD, other than being an expert in some very specific area is key. I guess it's all about marketing yourself for the specific post that you're applying for.
In regards to 30/31 being old to start a career, if you think in terms of the fact that 'our' generation will probably be working well into their 70's or even longer, 30/31 doesn't seem old at all!

Hey Nicka,
You'll get £1137.50 I month. You dont pay national insurance contributions or student loan with your studentship as it's not officially classed as income (i.e. you pay no tax on it). You can make N.I contributions/student loan payments if you want to, but nothing is actually deducted at source so you'll receive the full amount into your bank account every month.
Good luck with the PhD x

I'm in a fairly similar field to you (biological sciences), and have done a BSc, MSc and am now doing my PhD. In my lab and others we closely work with, a lot of people who are writing up or who have just finished their PhD tend to get Research Assistant posts prior to securing a Research Associate post after say 12 months. From what I've seen I'd say you definitely wouldn't get a Research Associate with just an MSc, and it would be fairly unlikely for you to get a Research Assistant post as well, unless the post was doing research in an area closely linked to say your MSc research. That's just based on what goes on at my Uni (top 5 Russell Group). The Research Assistant posts advertised at my Uni that I've seen usually ask for a PhD as 'desirable' rather than 'essential' so I guess it depends on the job/person specification.

I hate my PhD too, particularly at the moment. I hate the fact that everything seems to constantly go wrong, I hate my supervisor (i swear he's the living embodiment of Satan in a posh suit!), i hate feeling guilty whenever I'm not doing PhD work, I hate the endless round of repetitiveness and mundane rubbish that goes with doing a PhD, and I hate being a poor student!
Ahhhhh, feel better for that, excellent threat Ev!

I'm 18 months into my lab based PhD, and all i seem to do is mess up experiments and get stuff wrong. I've not done appropriate controls for some experiments and so had to go back and repeat them. I've also used the wrong concentrations of drugs and had to repeat these too. It wouldn't be so bad but I use primary cells from patients so patients have to keep coming back in so I can do this. Recently I've done a massive cock up, essentially the experiment I wasn't doing wasn't properly optimised and so now the data I've got is obviously questionable.
I just feel like an absolute idiot. I can't seem to get anything right, and these mistakes are picked up by my supervisor, it's not as if I even spot them before it's too late. I really enjoy my PhD (some of the time) and I desperately don't want to quit, but I'm starting to think that my position in the lab is becoming untenable and that maybe I should consider leaving as this just isn't for me. The experiments I'm doing are fairly basic, but if I can't even get these right what hope for the future is there? I really don't know what to do. I spend half my life crying at the moment as I just feel like such a failure. I thought after 18 months I'd have at least learned something, but it just seems that I haven't.
Any advice?

Two hours there and back may not seem alot but in reality it is. When I first started my PhD I commuted from my parent's house which took 2 hours there and approximately the same time back. I lasted 6 months of doing this, but was absolutely knackered! I'm doing a lab based PhD though, and I found that it severely affected my ability to do work early in the morning/late in the evenings and at weekend as well. My first 3-4 months I spent doing my literature review and so was mainly office rather than lab based for that time, but it was still horrendous. I really wouldn't recommend it at all.

Hi Sneaks,

At my Uni you need 5 publications, all of which you need to be first named author on! They're then put together as a new style thesis, i.e. each paper done as a chapter, with a main introduction and conclusion to the whole thing.
My supervisor offers this to a lot of the technicians in our lab, although never follows through with his promises!

I'd definately apply for it. In my lab, 2 new people have just started as research assistants, having recently submitted and passed their PhD or awaiting their viva. It seems to be an increasingly common theme for RA positions to be aimed at people straight after their PhDs, so I don't think that it would look bad on your cv. If it's someone that you are interested in working with it sounds like a great opportunity for you to network. If a more suitable post doc position comes up in the mean time there's nothing to stop you applying for it anyway, but if one doesn't at least you'd (potentially!) have a job and be getting more experience.