======= Date Modified 17 24 2009 10:24:23 =======
============= Edited by a Moderator =============
My post doc has now come to its official end. I am practically running my PIs department on my own. On the plus side its a been a completely new learning experience compared to my PhD. On the downside, I know I will in all likelihood have to start again at a new institution, have to move, make new friends all over again.

I have been applying to full time lecturer jobs and thought I would have been quite an attractive candidate with good research track record, a few grants, in a fairly popular field and a lot of organisational skills. I have been to conferences and meetings and made quite a few good contacts. However, I get shortlisted for most of my applications, but never actually get offered the job. They tend to go to internal candidates or people that have already been pencilled in as they already know the department or have worked there in an honorary capacity.

My PI knows he is onto a good thing and has offered me an ongoing temporary contract. The only thing is the money is a lot worse that I am currently on (because my ending fellowship came with money, and he is not willing to make up the shortfall).

There is a distinct shortage of lectureship jobs at the moment unless you are in the applied field (I am not) or willing to emigrate ( I am not). I would really like to get a full time permanent job in univesity, but I can't keep doing this forever. To be honest I really do feel like giving up, applying for some graduate scheme and starting again from the bottom, but the waste of time in academia will kill me. Plus there arent that many graduate jobs on the ground at the moment thanks to the recession. Is it just me, or is it like that for other post docs as well?

There is no other way to say it, but your situation sucks and you have every right to feel lousy. I went through a break up with my now ex-girlfriend when I was finishing my PhD and it was the worst possible timing and made everything seem 10 times harder.

From a practical viewpoint, might it help if you took a month or two off for "family reasons" (unless you already have a post doc or other job waiting for you)? I say this because I just soldiered on, completed my thesis and went through hell trying to get a post doc with all of my break up issues unresolved plus a horrendous ex supervisor stealing much of my credit for work. I too thought I wanted to give up on academia, but really didn't. In hindsight, what I would have done is take a couple of months off, got some perspective and mental space, then come back to my PhD with more motivation and less time in temping hell. I would have had some protection from my own self imposed pressure of finding a job (because I would still be a PhD student) while having to deal with what was happening in my life at the same time.

The second thing is that we all know that PhDs and academic life have a massive strain on relationships in general and we only have one side of that story. Looking back I know I had a lot of hatred, resentment and anger towards my ex for bailing on me at the worst possible time. However, with space I now realise what I had brought to the situation. My PhD was very stressful and this made things very uncomfortable around the house. Unfortunately for me, psychology PhDs don't have great job security, financial prospects and require a lot of job hopping and moving in the future. In contrast my ex's vocational doctorate made sure that she was straight onto a secure job and good income. Any outsider could probably see why she left, she wasn't evil, just sensible in her own way. On the flip side, one of my female post doc friend's relationship split up when her partners wanted to settle down and have a wife with a part time job and look after kids. To no one's suprise after struggling for years with a PhD that was the last thing she wanted.

This isn't to say what your ex did was acceptable, but understanding what happened may be helpful for putting your head back together, and moving on. There is no way of getting around that this was a guy you loved, and for the rest of us to weigh in with what a scumbag he was may help, but it also puts you in the position of having loved a scumbag too. I am not a therapist or anything but looking at all our situations it seems there was a disjoint in the way we saw our future and the way our exes saw the future.

I think I got the wrong end of the stick. When you wrote your first post I thought you were asking in a genuine spirit of enquiry about WHY your wished situation isn't happening. Like the academic that I am, I sought to provide my own argument about why the status quo exists and is unlikely to be changed in the forseeable future. Please, DO point out the flaws in my argument and we can debate it, as this is exactly why I got into academia in the first place.

I don't wish to denigrate you as an individual, but I do wish to challenge some of the assumptions (e.g. PhDers being experts over celebs, deserving coverage, etc). The Charles Darwin thing was an extreme attempt to illustrate a point, not draw direct comparison. Apologies if it offended you.

Although your post leads me to question your motives for PhD studies, Kudos for actually admitting what many keep to themselves. Most of us academics are here on a mix of ego, insecurity and dubious aspirations of greatness (or the good holidays and access to young impressionable members of the opposite gender).

I am slightly confused though. Are you saying you would rather have the ephemeral star status of a D list Big Brother winner than the hard won, graft generated reputation that say someone like Richard Dawkins has? Those 13 year old undergrads dont usually change the world.

In fact very few people monumentally change the world, and I would bet that one of those people will not be you. Don't worry about it, it won't be me either. As you say, you are probably writing something no one apart from a handful of people give a crap about. Why would you expect media attention? I cannot imagine any phd student would actually warrant wide scale attention, because as the bottom rung in the academic ladder you are unlikely to be leading a project to cure aids or discovering life on mars. You may be contributing but at this stage you are going to be a tiny cog in a larger machine.

You can still be remembered. You publish in your field, you make a reputation, you become an expert in that area. Only they won't be making statues, but you get name checked in lectures and in conferences. For me, better to be remembered for the right reasons than the wrong ones.

Blunt I know, but I am a yorkshireman, call a spade a spade and all that.

But hang on ladies and gentlemen! One could suggest that outsourcing intellectual labour, cheating and taking credit for what others have done are the quintessential skills for a bright future career in academia.

I still remember my old PhD supervisor lame explanation why he got first authorship on a published paper I had written, submitted and rewritten on my own. He said thats the nature of the beast, and that this was all part of university life. Likewise I have observed some of the cretins that have made reader or senior lecturer have paid others to write their papers, teach their lectures and generally offload their obligations . These other people are known as post-docs.
All that this thread shows is that the rot has spread to the lower levels. It was always there if you knew where to look.

I trust in the future, there will an internet service that will bully and intimidate your fellow students on your behalf so they pose even less of a risk to your future prospects.

I feel a PhDer is still a student, and is what most of them are called. I am not sure what else you would call them or describe them as? I think the hostility is nasty, but conversely maybe there is a little over-sensitivity from the OP about what is a fairly innocuous term.

As a post doc I am not termed a "faculty member" and am excluded from lots of the stuff lecturers and readers and profs are. Its just the nature of the beast.

Have you told them it upsets you and for them not to do it? What would you rather be called? Would you be offended by "postgrad" (as that mixes you up with MSc students)? or a researcher (some of who may only have BScs?). I guess its hard to know what will be acceptable without having that thrashed out at some level.

I agree with the point sleepyhead makes that academics are very heirarchical. But isn't that also what the OP is playing into and supporting? The idea that "students" are somehow classed as a lesser entitity in some way?

For the record it is anonymised and some important details have been changed but the spirit of the thing remains. I even post here via someone elses computer.8-)

As for me getting fired, don't worry. If anything were to happen to me, it would mean A LOT of other people would get fired too as well as a very public humiliation for several people. It really would not be in anyones interests at all to go after me. Top tip for future post-docs - Know where the bodies are buried. Also as a fixed term post doc my job mobility is far more flexible than anyone else involved.

I too think the bullied blogger is either something that happened a while ago, or something that has been totally skewed for dramatic effect. Its also very one sided, but then again isnt everyone.

In case anyone ever wondered what happened.

We had the first meeting last week. Its my first real experience of being in an official investigation (for a crime we didn't commit like the A-team). What subsequently transpired could be equated to a farce crossed with an episode of Boston Law.

Sat around a group meeting room, Katy had her NUS representative, her Lawyer and another couple of people who I didn't understand their role was. On my side there was my PI, me (Ms Ubercompetitive has left long ago), Sabrina and two other PhDers and another old timer Postdoc. We had a university administrator/representative on our side, who honestly was as much use as tits on a fish. Half stuttering, unable to read lines from a piece of paper and quick to fold under the slightest challenge she was one of the worst aspects of the entire experience. The independent investigator, some other people and a chairperson presided (who was more used to collegial discussions rather than adverserial interrogation).

We kicked off by explaining the situation and how basically Katy had acted completely out of hand. Thanks to some meticulous paperwork on my part and Sabrinas we were able to present a fairly solid account of the events that took place.

Katy then came back with a spectacular fabrication that said
- She was told to do it by the PI.
- She was bullied by Sabrina, Dr UC, me, the rest of the team, the university, everyone ever in higher education, the universe and everyone reading this on this board.
- Dr UC had threatened her.
- She hadn't done anything wrong really.
- She was suing us for all the distress and wrongful things we had done to her.

We had to disprove all the things she alleged (Karl Popper knows nothing, you can disprove a negative).

Back and forth it raged, she did this, we said that. It lasted an afternoon but felt like a lifetime. Then again 3 days later with additional evidence and allegations. In the end we got the outcome we wanted (ie. Katy didn't have a leg to stand on). The thing we got told off for was Dr UCs almost sabotaging emails, which almost swung the case towards Katy.

Regardless to say Katy is going to appeal. Lets see what happens.

Just a word of advice (coming from a supervisor perspective).

I predict you will be tempted to focus on the beatdown around the internal ex behaving unprofessionally, the possible agenda/politics and your future gameplan. You should equally (if not more) hammer out any pre-existing weaknesses in your thesis that he addressed. Or they will be waiting for you at viva.

Just because the speaker is an a-hole, it doesn't mean he isnt right about something (as has been often said about me).;-) At least this way you can get something constructive out of that nasty experience. It will make you look more balanced and reinforce the impression you can rise above the petty backbiting by focussing on "the issues".

I think there are two things going on.

The first is that you would expect an examiner/upgrade reviewer to critique the weakest element of your upgrade. I would do that. Otherwise it will not go down too well at your final viva if it hasn't been properly addressed (then the inevitable "Why was this student upgraded from Mphil in the first place?"). If they aren't doing that, they aren't doing their job. The main thing is that you WERE upgraded. Your work was good enough, many others aren't. Remember that.

The second thing is that he seems to have an additional agenda, either brown-nosing a superior or trying to take out a possible future rival (i.e. You). Such mind games are part and parcel of academic life and you cannot let yourself get dragged into this. It happens at higher levels of university and it can get worse (read the bullied blogger in the Times Higher Educational supplement for more).

Objectively, you won. You quit, he wins.

Sure, he clawed a few points back. Big deal. It was a pity that you showed he got to you, but it is only a mistake if you compound the error. Ideally you will grow from this, finish your PhD then start gunning for him. There is no sweeter revenge than decimating another academic who previously trashsed you. 8-)

Its certainly not trivial, and this sort of thing can have a massive effect on your work and is often overlooked or trivialised by supervisors. I had a nasty break up when looking for post-docs and I reckon it honestly set me back 6 months. However, friends and places like here helped me vent when I really needed it (even though it didnt take away the pain, it helped me through).

Your individual situation is all too common ("I just want you as a friend" basically). Its bad enough when you have this card played at you in the best of times, but when you are isolated, uncertain and on an uphill struggle like most PhDers are it can be even more devastating. Its like the only thing to look foward to is gone, and you are left with re-writes, running another experiement without that hint of joy at the end of the day. No other way to say it but it sucks and it hurts like hell.

I personally don't get much out of when people say "buck up" or "oh its going to be alright at the end". Its crap now and thats all that matters. You can talk to student counselling, get drunk with friends, take a few days off and try escaping. Basically find a new temporary non-girl oasis to get you through. Or maybe take some time to say "Yeah, this is shit" and basically mourn and grieve, recognise any good things you got out of it and finally bury it and move on. I did the latter and it worked fairly well for me.

I recently examined at my first Viva (internal examiner).

FYI, I passed the guy (minor corrections for typos + clarification/ 1 month to resubmit), his PhD was very, very good and watertight. As you know I am very critical, and nitpicky but honestly there was nothing I could find wrong with it. The only probing question I asked was why he chose to format the results in the manner that he did. He explained it well, but even so walking into the room I knew I couldn't possibly fail him on that. For him we both knew he had passed, as long as he didn't do anything horrific (e.g. not speak English, confessed to plagiarism or jump on the table and wave his genitals at us). If I am being honest it was like a friendly talk and lasted for an hour. If I am being even more honest it could have lasted 5 minutes.

From my understanding and chatting with the very nice external examiner its not always like this. He divided vivas into 3.

The first are like the ones above. Very well designed, coherently constructed and often already published. There is very little to do than ask polite questions and allow a decent amount of time to elapse before sending them on their way with a smile and a handshake. (Mainly minor corrections or outright passes)

The second are good theses but do have methodological flaws. These can last a long time, and the defender has the job of negotiating damage limitation. Often at this point its between agreeing between minor corrections and major corrections depending on how they perform on the day/ how good their defence is. You probably are not going to viva them again. I felt my own PhD fell into this category.

The third are theses which should fail really. Either badly written, poorly designed or the author has missed the point somewhere along the line. However, there is an onus to not fail PhD students (recent political pressure) so resubmissions and re-vivas are often the outcome. I understood at this point the student is fighting for either significant re-writing or accepting an MPhil. He had been at a couple of these and he said these vivas were deceptively quick, unless the student becomes beligerent (which doesnt help their chances).

In addition I have seen a few outright failures. I know about these from working in the PG committee. Sadly, none have been the students fault -Its the supervisors complete neglect or shocking behaviour (like one PhDer who ended up basicially as a self funded RA for her supervisor). Thankfully quite rare, but shouldnt happen at all.

Publications are incredibly important if you want to have a career in academia.

Some of the things your universities/ teams look for are

- number of publications (more the better)
- The impact factor of the journal it has been published in (higher the better)
- The number of citations it recieves (again more people cite your work the better) - *Possibly the most important factor.
- H index (how much has your research had an impact) you can get your H index from web of science once you start publishing
-Were you first author (main writer) or last writer (project lead). Those two positions are the most prestigious. Also fewer authors the better. If you are buried in a long list of authors it is less impressive and it can seem almost like a cursory acknowledgement more than anything else. I am not really familiar with the concept of "joint-first authorship" or if it is taken seriously by other academics (well not in my field) unless it is a paper with only two authors (where both are normally regarded as contributing significantly).

In addition the following things are also looked at.

- References from your former supervisor about how you got on well in the team.
- Ability to pull in funding/ grants etc
- Your general profile (have you presented at conferences, have you organised events, how "well" you are known in your field).
- Other niche skillsets (technical skills, proficiencies)

The publication track record is a significant component and one that is often underestimated by PhDers. Different teams will take various elements into account, but citation/ impact and H index seem to be increasingly important as universities become wise to having people that publish masses of articles in journals that no one will ever read.

With regards to getting gipped over authorship; this happens all too often and it has happened to me once. My old supervisor said its "Part of paying your dues", but I see it as pure exploitation and backstabbing. Sometimes you have to accept you got played and chalk it up to experience. The real sin is if it keeps happening again and again. If it ever happened to me again I would make it an issue and if necessary contact the editor of the journal to delay/withdraw if necessary. In any case they ask you to usually sign an authors declaration (to sign over copyrights) and you can withhold this if you think you are being shafted.

Thanks for the support folks. It makes me feel quite uncharacteristically positive ;)