Oh. I am SO sorry.

Perhaps you could also extend your invitation to all the PhD students here who complain about their supervisors? Or to all posters who moan about inadequate funding? Or in effect anyone that uses this place to vent frustration. However, clearly in this brave new world of yours posts that single out individuals for personal attacks are enitrely acceptable.

Perhaps you can simply not read my posts if they offend you so much. Although I may add that if they genuinely were offensive they would be moderated or I would be banned. List of things I also suggest you should also avoid if you don't enjoy negativity or criticism of the academic system:

-The Times Higher Education Supplement
-The Guardian
-The internet
-University staff common rooms


Also I really don't think I have to justify my decision to pursue my careeer to you.

Thinking from a wider perspective, this sort of thing is sadly inevitable.

Academia is now a lassaiz faire economic system where university has become marketised and BAs, MScs and PhDs are becoming yet another consumer product available for purchase. There is a willing supply of "help" from the poor, desparate and/or disillusioned, who only have their academic skills to trade. There is a willing demand from the less able, the wealthy and disinclined to study.

If you want to look at it in one way, its almost like intellectual version of prostitution. There are only victims. Others will view it as "enterprising" and a way of "thinking outside the box" and using academic skills in a real world context.

I remember I once was approached to work for a similar venture (writing essays for undergrads). I seriously contemplated it. I was in a low point in my life, probably lowest. If you are interested its all documented here.

http://www.postgraduateforum.com/threadViewer.aspx?TID=6730

I am glad I didnt go ahead with it, but I know many ex PhDers that did (and still do). I don't approve of it, but I think this kind of thing is understandable within the current mass university system.



PS. This must be the worst "advert" ever. The writing style is horrific and gives the impression that anyone going to them for "assistance" would be better of asking a 5 year old relative for help.

Oh. I didn't read the London bit. Doh!

Clearly the "best schools" in London are the one that blokes outside Tottenham court road tube station hands fliers out for. I can highly recommend "University of Great Britain" or "Oxford Street College". Their brochures are imaginative in their use of spelling, and show wonderful photos of countryside campuses that have nothing at all to do with the small cramped rooms situated in the picturesque location above Burger King.

There you can spend thousands of pounds and don't even need to go to lectures. In fact if you cash in your "life experience" and write a 100 word essay about why you want to be a 'graduite' [sic] you can even get your PhD there - complete with MSWord ClipArt coat of arms!

Go there Adigun. Definitely. Just think how proud your parents will be when you graduate from the premier educational establishment in the region (the region being between the Starbucks and Pret a Manger).

I can tell you from firsthand experience that Oxford and Cambridge are both rubbish for "Witchcraft and Wizardry".

I completely agree with you that financial status should not be a factor.

However, I would take this further and advocate AGAINST CDLs and and have fewer postgraduates who are entirely funded by bursaries, scholarships and funded seats. That way postgrad debt would be reduced, and the credential inflation we see (which encourages CDLs and the culture of everyone doing MScs + more debt) would be limited.

I don't think enthusiasm and "intelligent enough" should be the requirements. On the contrary I see that CDLs and self funded are actually a way of perpetuating inequalities, because it allows the rich (or those willing to get into debt, who are not going to be the debt adverse working class). This is more likely to result in perpetuating the social/class based elite, in favour of a meritocratic elite because this way you cant get people buying their way into prestigious courses.

I have seen the word elitist being bandied around, but it is ill defined. You could argue by the very virtue of entering Higher education (think of the very word "Higher") anyone doing so is pursuing an elitist agenda. By this yardstic everyone on this board is going to be elitist in some way.

The harsh reality is that education IS based on money.

I would also like to point out that Education is not, and never has been, "free" and that money has always been a factor.
The way it used to be (and still is for some) is that the state or another body can subsidise your education (either part or whole), and thus it does not cost the individual anything. For example, I won competitive scholarships for my postgrad studies, but am under no illusion that someone else still paid, and they paid a lot. For my fees, for my lab equipment, for my study participants time, even the stationery I used.

With all that in mind how can education NOT be based on money?

What I do challenge is the idea of a "right" to a university education rather than a choice. Higher education isn't everyones right but is an individual choice with individual consequences.

Um, I don't know if you have any art/humanities based PhD friends, but many home students make do with their £6k stipends and see us science PhDers as spoilt and overpaid. Even in London.

======= Date Modified 19 Mar 2009 09:19:00 =======
============= Edited by a Moderator =============
The problem with the arguments made by the "University of Life" types is that they are entirely based on anecdotal evidence. So they always cite the one or two people that made a success of their life without degrees. However, the actual statistics show that degree earners on average earn more than non-degree earners (used to be about £400,000 more over a lifetime but now about £150,000). Also note that in recessions and downturns it is the graduates who are more likely to stay afloat than the skilled/semi skilled groups.

Also society in the west has moved along to the point that you now need a degree to do jobs that previously didn't require a degree just to get into an entry level job. No doubt this leads to some of the resentment that non-degree holders have over degree holders.

However, there is the issue about the extra employability a PhD will give you. A lot of people think along the lines of "one degree good, two degrees better" but its not usually the case as outside academia employers often have misconceptions about PhDers (and may even be intimidated by them). Thats why the UK Gradschools were set up to help offset some of this, but I still think that a vocational postgraduate course is probably a better bet if you are just measuring eventual salary.

What doing a PhD gives you is the unrivalled opportunity to get paid for doing something you love in obsessive detail. Obviously this is going to make some people a bit annoyed especially if they can't see the practical application of it and they have to do the 9 to 5 grind. Thats their problem, not yours.

I posted about one of my PhDers who failed her viva a while ago. You can read about it here.

http://www.postgraduateforum.com/threadViewer.aspx?TID=10217

She tried to appeal and it didn't really go down too well. Universities tend to be quite defensive and there are a lot of politics that play out behind the scenes. Often examiners are appointed on the basis that something is wanted in return, collaborations, etc. It can be hard to second guess some of these things.

One innate problem with this situation is that there is no standardised marking of PhDs or transparent methods of assessment. Thus anyone who fails is almost certain to say its not fair, inadequate examiners, problems in the process etc. As a result, everyone that has failed before you and takes this route makes it harder for you and everyone that follows, as universities automatically assume appeals are based on bitterness rather than anything else.

Although I cant speak for the OP, I really do not think my PhDer should have failed. However, I (and she) can't prove that. In some way appeals bring up an adversarial position towards universities and examiners because whenever someone appeals it basically says to the externals "You are unfit to do your job and your judgement is unsound". That stance is bound to cause problems.

Having said that, I have seen successful appeals. Usually the grounds are quite strong, and often there is either documentary evidence (from feedback comments, notes taken in the viva or audio taping) that the examiners had a gap in their knowledge or had made a significant mistake. This does happen, and if you have any evidence that shows this, then you can really launch an appeal with a good chance. I always tell my PhDers if they can to take audio recordings of vivas if this is acceptable for their examiners.

http://www.vitae.ac.uk/3909/GRADBritain-online-magazine.html

Read a few copies of this and there is quite a lot of good stuff for PhD students and it answers several worries. Also from the sound of things attending a GRAD school may be a good idea, if your funding incorporates it.

I woud second the comments below as I think it can very, very messy.

Mind you, academic flirting happens and its one of those things about knowing the difference of what you should be doing versus what you really want to do. Its very easy for us to sit on the other side of a keyboard telling you the right thing to do, but its harder at your end.

That said there are often two supervisors, one proper primary supervisor who is like a boss or line manager. Its probably not wise to be too overfriendly or inappropriate with this one. Other technical supervisors like second supervisors that may be younger academics that are guiding you, but not necessarily responsible for you may be more friendlike, go out and get drunk with etc. I think the boundaries can blur here, and I know of second supervisors that have had flings with their students. Its frowned on, but no one ever really took it that seriously around my uni.

Snowed under myself and I found the following helpful:

i) If possible, split the 4 hours into 2 x 2 hour blocks that have a gap between. Cut down on fatigue. Not overwhelming or difficult to motivate yourself compared to facing a 4 hours solid block.
ii) If you in sciences and have any automated procedures or anything that you can set up then leave running make sure you schedule these in the early part of the day and leave them running. They will be ready for you when you come back from work.
iii) Use an activity schedule with concrete achievable goals. Will help you stay on target.
iv) If possible try to get a post within your job that allows you to study while on company time. One of my PhDers works at a Sainsbury's warehouse and chose a post with lots of hectic periods followed by long break periods. He takes his laptop with him and writes up in the downtime. To his credit he is one of my most productive students. Can you do something like this?

I had a fairly long response but the browser crashed. This is verging becoming bullying, with pointless name calling and people wilfully misinterpreting and making inferences from vague comments. That post about the films being a prime, needless example.

If anyone wants to debate mortgages, gender roles, wish fulfilment please follow the example of Shani, who avoids making attacks but debates the points and the underlying concepts.

If you want to accuse me of being sexist, inflamatory, hateful, narrowminded or any other ad hominem attacks I suggest you contact a moderator and let them know. The forum has strict guidelines and mods presumably would remove posts if they were any of the above.

Shani, good to hear from you. Glad someone is coming into this with some interesting and valid counterpoints rather than just emotional backlash and casual misandry.

Finished my grant application now so I feel I can post more about my thinking regarding the "pregnant option" and mortgages.

There are certain social patterns such as women earning less, more likely to be in lower ranking positions in the hierarchy, less likely to want to date poorerer less succesful men (Not a sexist wisecrack but check out http://www.canada.com/Technology/story.html?id=1047914 for the point I am trying to make). This means that if two people are in a relationship, there is an increased liklihood of the man having to carry the financial burden in the event of pregnancy, which includes getting and paying off the mortgage (not in every relationship but still many).

This is unfortunate in itself, but from an entirely selfish point, crappy for me. Statistically speaking, I more likely to have a partner that is not in a position to financially support me by herself because of these unfortunate gender imbalances. I can't get pregnant either. If I could I would quite like to exercise this hypothetical option to have a wealthier partner take the financial strain, and not worry about the mortgage (the one I am yet to get in reality). Like it was commonly in the 1950s but even now in certain upper middle class families. I don't see this as a demeaning option or in any way unworthy. On the contrary it is desirable, as I evidently would like this option.