I have been thinking of some of Sylvesters points.

I too agree that although bullying in academia is endemic it is not the "norm" in many fields. I saw some people go through their entire academic careers without any such pressure, in the same way I knew people who went through school without being bullied. If you really think about it, there is no functioning context where bullying is the "norm" otherwise that system would not last more than a few years at best.

However, there is a significant minority that ARE being bullied, and by standing by and doing nothing you are complicit in maintaining the wall of silence. By disuading others from action (even under the benign intention of "moving on") it is allowing the injustice to carry on.

We need to have examples of students that have taken on the system, achieved justice AND THEN prospered afterwards. If everyone is scared it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

If something is so endemic it warrants its own blog

http://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/

we all have to make some sort of stand even if only to assuage our own conscience.

But just "walking away" means nothing is addressed and you are partly (by proxy) guilty for the abuse that follows.

Slightly more extreme scenario, but would you advise a young girl who had been sexually or physically abused by an adult to "bite your teeth and and bear with it?" and to "Leave it in the past" or would you want something changed, provisions made for that adult to never do it again?

If you agree that something should be done in cases of abuse, action should be taken for ALL cases of abuse, physical sexual or (in PhD students case) psychological.

As its quite isolating and solitary, I was wondering if there is a way to have an online irc group chatroom for PhD students and postdocs? Or is there one that exists, you all hang out on and I am missing.

If I have to spend one more day with the intellectual highlight being Rita from accounts complaining about moving house I may need mental health services.

I have been saying this for a long time and QT you have my support!

However, I think you need to think quite broadly. Getting in contact with the press may be one aspect, get in contact with the industries that work alongside universities, write to MPs, just anything to raise the plight of PhDs.

I started thinking outside the box, and I started writing a play based on PhD exploitation that a few actor friends were interested in staging. Taking some time because a) I want it to be accurate (and not about "BadHairCuts shitty supervisor", b) I have to do it between temping.

With a 2:1 or a 1st, I think you have a good chance to get onto a Psychology Research Methods MSc.

So why am I so sure?

Lots of psychology students want to progress onto either clinical or forensic training or an Research PhD and for this they usually need a 2:1 minimum. Many that have obtained a 2:2 or lower go off and do an MSc in RM because courses/ supervisors see this as a way to "mitigate" against them not having a 2:1 or 1st. From my observation you will be up against people with low 2:1s or 2:2s. The fact you are from the OU is irrelevant because as long as you have GBR your degree has been standardised.

FYI. The one at UCL is quite popular and has a good reputation, but there are several good ones out there. Some are more competitive than others.

This is pretty much what happened to me (control freak, abusive supervisor), but I didnt complain and went along with it. When he got axed (internal politics), I was tarred with the same brush, and am finding it impossible to find work.

However: I wish I HAD made a complaint, because I am in pretty much exactly the same situation I would have been in only without the satisfaction of knowing that I tried to change things.

I am not saying what to do. I do find it interesting though that most of us advise taking the "quiet way" out, and thus guarantee the cycle perpetuating.

Remember, if this sort of behaviour was highlighted by someone preceding you, YOU wouldnt be in the position you are in. With that in mind, you can make a difference.

Good luck. This sort of stuff should never happen, and its an embarassment that people like your supervisor are hired, whereas there are plenty of decent hardworking PhDs that are not able to work in academia.

1) You dont need to have an MPhil to obtain a PhD studentship. Funded PhDs are not THAT hard to find, and if you found one once, you can find one again.

2) Make yourself known to the medical team and get a formalised notice of stress due to the circumstances of your PhD supervisor. If anything happens in the future this will be important.

3) Seriously consider Harui and Belisarius suggestion of filing a formal complaint. This helps a) you as your future employers will be under no impression that your problems were due to your own incompetence, but harrassment, b) gives hope to every other PhD student that is going through the same shit as you, and reduces the possibility of it happening again.

You may find it helpful if you downplay your doctorate and talk more about your admin skills/ typing speed/ organisational skills.

Whatever you do, don't refer to yourself as "doctor".

Four first authored, two second authored and about six where I am a co-author.

And I am still working for Office bloody angels...

While everyone becomes demoralised at some point, the fact you say that you "hate research" suggests that you are probably better off calling it a day. You arent the only one, and the huge attrition in PhD students reflects this.

A PhD is basically a training to do research full time, and is pretty pointless otherwise. Sure people may talk of "transferable skills", but these are achievable by so many other ways you are going to enjoy more.

What you could do is negotiate a break from your studies and work for a while and see what you think. If you love industry you dont need to come back.

I suspect that if your supervisor says "It was fine" when you next meet them, you won't like it. However, if he says "Actually that was shit" you won't really like that either, so you are already on course for a lose-lose situation.

If it is still really troubling you, you could:

a) Say to your supervisor "Regardless of whether it went good or bad could you give me one/ two areas I could improve on".

b) Go to the person that asked your questions and ask them how could you have done things better? What would they have expected? etc etc.

This is quite a good way to see if that academic is a hard core scholar who is pressing for excellence in their field (and if so they WILL give you the pointers you are desparately seeking) or the sort that is ego-driven and takes delight in bringing others down (you will know this if they make you feel like shit, despite your efforts to better yourself). If so, you can safely ignore what they have to say.

Either way you win.

Just be aware:

Although its obvious that "you" felt the talk went badly, it is most likely that no-one else remembers. To be quite frank, no one really expects you to have all the answers (especially not at your stage).

But enough people have said this to you already on your previous thread (and your supervisor by the sound of things), so I reckon you are actually asking for something different- validation and reassurance. This is quite natural, especially for beginners who are fairly new to the material and its even worse for the PhD students who tend to be perfectionistic, high achievers.

con't

I know of several "Happy endings".

I have a close friend who had a fairly rough time growing up and pretty much didn't have a pot to piss in. Most of his life people had written him off as a no hoper.

However, was able to go to uni (we studied back in the grant days) then secure a well paid studentship to do his PhD, and then went on to the notoriously competitive clinical psychology program (which he again got paid for) and seems to be doing quite well ever since. He helps kids with difficulties who are having a tough time and written off by most so I guess for him the circle is complete.

Makes you think doesn't it?