One of my friends sent me the link to this blog about an assistant psychologist. Even though its slightly different to our experiences (the assistant seems to be doing clinical work rather than research), it struck me about how universal the experiences were (supervisor issues, lack of job security, interviews for doctorates).

Also coming from a psychology background, with an ex-gf who went through something similar I found it true to life especially the stuff about rejection.

http://reservelistjockey.blogspot.com/

I can see that is probably going to happen in our lab because our PI is always in the US. However, he is big enough to afford several PhDers fail on his watch as he keeps the grant money flooding in, and the publications pumping out.

I think Juno's system is fantastic and should be mandatory everywhere.

Undestandably for the forseeable future Marie is "off sick".

Maybe I am consigning myself to starless eternity, but I would question whether we really need "stars" as a way of validating ourselves as worthwhile?

Hey? Who am I kidding. I am talking to some people that put themselves through hell just to have the title "Dr".

People make the point that "someone" should have picked up on "something". I gave a glance through it, and felt it was a bit patchy, but I have seen others with worse pass. Also I am not the expert (arguably she is or was supposed to be).

Our supervisor isn't here that often and has a very lassaiz faire attitude to supervision and lets us get on with things.

As context, this girl was okay (not exactly Nobel prize winning material, but not stupid either). She sort of turned up and just got on with things. She kept her head low in the whole Sabrina/ Katy fiasco I talked about elsewhere, and was quite quiet. I didn't even know anything was up until her viva. From her look of surprise neither did she.

I feel its a mix of inadequate supervision, lack of adequate preparation and some old-skool examiners which made for this rather unpleasant situation.

One of the PhDers in my lab had her viva today.

We waited expectently for her to return, bought a cake and everything. Only she came back in tears and told us she had failed. The panel absolutely slaughtered her and she felt so anxious she couldnt answer certain questions. Also there was some uncertainty about a paper she had co-authored (but wasnt first author) so the external had cast aspersions on how much she had written.

The panel recommended her project was suitable for an MPhil but only after major changes. Poor girl is gutted, and I dont really want to go through that experience again with another students...

From the other side of the fence I see the following factors as being important in your post PhD career.

- Number of publications (as many have commented upon) but in high impact journals.
- Amount of time taken to complete thesis (nearer 3 years the better).
- Extra transferable skills in your PhD (quantitative mathematical skills/ computer/ scientific are all sought after).
-Your ability to win funding (grants, awards, scholarships at your stage, study grants as a post-dog).
- Contacts in the field.

- Where you got your PhD from, (but not for the reasons you may expect ie. prestige from name of uni). Highly ranked institutions often have cutting edge equipment, are well resourced and have high performing research teams that publish often and sit on the editorial boards of journals. It stands to reason that if you are from one of these elite universities you are more likely to be an author/co-author, as there is more output from these unis altogether.

It was difficult to find my post doc, and I temped for a while which was soul destroying (search for my earlier posts). My current contract is also fixed terms so I get to do it all over again in a couple of years...

As a post doc I can say that its not what you may think. To answer your questions

1). Depends on your thesis subject. If you are doing something that is "sexy" in your subject then you may be able to get a post doc on the basis of your PhD experience. If its more obscure or less popular you will probably have to change subjects.

2) Is doing a postdoc as isolating as I think it is?
Yes. You are not a student, you are not staff. Sound familiar? Its like being a PhD student again, only without the safety net of saying "Hey I am just a student" if you mess up. Pay is better, but you work for it by god.

3) People do often leave the post doc holding pattern because they cant find permanent lecturer jobs or because their skills are lucrative in industry (more sciences than humanities).

I think you are mistaken if you think there is more "freedom". If you are in a place like mine you will have to work 60 hour weeks.

Without knowing the ins and outs its hard to say anything concrete.

However, think about the "vibe" you get at each place. Are there any niggling doubts about one uni over the other. Fitting in at the uni is just as important as your supervisor and project, as it keeps you connected to others and stops you getting isolated. Worry less about "prestige" and think more about connections, interdisciplinary learning and transferable skills.

I think there is an additional factor that PhD mums often don't factor in- what you do after your PhD.

Academia is notoriously bad for work life balance, and to be a top academic today is almost incompatible with a normal family life, (hell its hard enough to satisfy an adult partner, let alone give you time to raise children properly). Couple that with the lack of security as a post-doc and the need to relocate at the drop of a hat, I would ask very serious questions before anyone took that route.

This is a good paper that discusses some of these issues (if you can get it).
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED296632&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED296632

I had a weird image about this guy using the above as a chat up line to pull girls in a bar.

That thought is going to keep me happy all evening.

Head of Dept knows all about it, but is currently stateside (he is a visiting professor over there). He has basically told me to "Do what I need to do", and he will back me up all the way. Aint Skype wonderful.

I am having a 9am meeting with Ms UberCompetitive to chew her out over sending the threats. I have been thinking over the unpleasent possibility this weekend that I may actually have to launch a disciplinary investigatio against her or send some of it onto the cops as it is rather intimidating.

If I don't and Katy retaliates and cites it, I too will be in the firing line.

Moral of the story, don't write down ANYTHING that could be considered harassing. Even to vent or in jest.

However, under my new resolution to look on the positive side, I have had some very good comments about one of the papers submitted from my PhD, so looks like another potential publication is on the horizon.

Added to this Ms UberCompetitive is making things a million times worse by going on the offensive and writing emails to Katie that border on death threats, which give Katie the ammunition to use against us. Halfway through yesterday I honestly had the thought that Ms UC was paid by Katie to sabotage our defence.

This could seriously impact on the lab and we could get shut down. The remaining PhDers and postdogs are bouncing around in fear. Ms UC thinks she is Winston Churchill fighting the third reich, and I have to keep everything together as my boss is only back in August.

Latest installment. Katie strikes back! Darth Vader Returns!

The office of independent adjudication is getting involved after Katie went to them. She is citing "inadequate supervision" and "extenuating circumstances" and "harrassment". There is also stuff about plagiarism which is going to be impossible to prove.

So guess who has to give up his weekend to start going through the various documents and statements? Its ME! I am no judge judy, but even I can see that half the stuff is circumstantial and is the sort of "He said-she said" type of evidence. In scientific terms most of it would be considered non-falsifiable, and impossible to prove or disprove.