Nope. That is what you are inferring.

I used support mainly from the financial sense from my observations of people around me (bear in mind I was discussing this in the context of mortgages). Obviously I would like emotional, social and other forms of support too if I was to hypothetically get pregnant.

I would also like the generous maternity leave that is granted to women which is a good thing. What is a bad thing is that paternity leave is restricted to two weeks Which really IS sexist but another argument for another time.

Again, and I repeat, I would like the option to get pregnant and have someone else be in a position to take care of me. What is horrific about that? If you do want to take offence at that please contact a moderator, or better still, explain why this desire is so regressive or insulting (I am willing to debate it may be completely wrong for me even if it could happen but I am still allowed to wish for it).

Did I say everyone that gets pregnant somehow gets a free pass? No
Did I say anything derogatory about women? No
Did I state that all women do this? No

Did you infer any of the above? Possibly.

I just said I would like to take an option where I could be in a position where I could start a family AND have a partner that covers me financially. What part of that is upsetting? If I wished for a billion pounds would you still get upset?

What is wrong in stating that SOME people get pregnant AND have a partner that can support them. My mum and dad cant be the only ones. Males supporting females happens far more often than vice versa. Or am I completely wrong?

Yeah I have "prejudices" and "opinions". Everyone does.

"Smacks of sexism?". Well as sexism implies prejudice or discrimination, I struggle to see how my THOUGHTS (note, not my actual actions or any form of behaviour) actively promote either? But hell, I always thought academic life was about taking a position and then debating it, before thrashing out some kind of final thesis? Clearly not. Its about taking umbrage and getting pissy if somone disagrees with you.

If my idea is wrong (it being a desirable course of events if I was in a position to start a family while someone else financially covers my arse) please do state your counterpoint and back it up. If I am wrong I will concede and change. You know, kind of how academics are supposed to?

Which brings me back to the point about mortgages. Yeah. It probably is quite reasonable considering the banks position. I agree I probably should think differently about that.

Still, at this rate, the afterlife is going to be one AMAZING place folks.

It gets even better.

Even though I am on 30kish, as I am on an ongoing series of post doc short term contracts most banks are not touching me with a barge pole (thanks for that credit crunch). So even despite earning over the median UK salary, academia still thwarts my efforts at joining normal society.

I really wish I could take the "get pregnant and let my partner sort it out" option, but as I am a man this is unlikely.

I remember I had this late night conversation with some of my friends back when I was a PhDer (oh, so long ago now). We thrashed out the optimal anti-competitive PhD student defensive manouvers which included:

- Having a mock up of an acceptance letter for "Nature" casually lying around on the desk. Ask the rival to pass you something from the desk, ideally under the letter and when they reach over and hold the letter casually ask them "Just bin that would you, don't you get tired of so many of these things."

- Phone up the rival explaining you have a huge problem. Your supervisor has asked you to be a prominant author on a paper, and you feel wracked with guilt because you really didnt do too much and its embarrassing after the sixth time. Extra points awarded if you actually have the nerve to suggest he intends you to be the only author.

- When bumping into the corridor have a puzzled look on your face. When asked about it say "I wonder if Princeton or Yale have better conditions for their tenured lecturers posts?", when asked to elaborate remain enigmatically silent but complain about the prices of airplane tickets.

- Drop into conversation completely made up plausible, but deniable political goings on in the department. New professor, so and so has a grudge, someone or other just got a grant. Try to give the impression that this is common knowledge to the "elite circle" -that they aren't in.

God, I love being evil.

Oops. I had mistaken Eska for Lim. Apologies. My fault entirely. Also for the record, I agree with the lack of supervisor trainng in universities.

I guess my point was directed to a movement within education (and wider society) that plays to blame, fear and insecurity rather than hold up people as something positive to aspire to. Its all part of the movement where you can no longer tell kids in school that they have failed a test, but have "deferred success". Or why sports days have been cancelled because if someone comes first, then everyone else gets upset.

The truth is we are different and we do have varying abilities. The field we have chosen is very competitive. Academia is entirely based on comparison, whether theory A vs Theory B, or whether student X gets a scholarship over student Y, or whether university 1 gets a better RAE than university 2. You can't hide it.

I don't see what is "unprofessional" about making comparisons. While supervisors have a duty to be non-destructive, PhD students also have an equal responsibility to be emotionally resiliant, and be able to take on board feedback without reacting defensively.

I am not sure what cardinal error it is your supervisor is supposed to have made here? Am I misreading this?

Did they out and out criticise you?
Did they demean you or imply you are worthless in any way?
Did they make an explicit untrue direct comparison between you and this other "perfect" student?

Doesn't seem so. If they did, you can make a complaint, and I would be behind this course of action 100%.

From what I gather he demonstrated, using a real life example of someone who can work well and balance having a child with an academic career. So what he isn't her supervisor? I often use examples of people who I have nothing to do with, when trying to illustrate a point. Are you seriously telling us you expect him to be at the beck and call of your personal insecurities, as well as the insecurities, jealousies and resentments of everyone else he happens to be supervising?
People talk about supervisors being incompetent and being "Biatches", and I think this can be taken too far. Believe me I had an awful supervisor. For me that means NO supervision, work plagiarised, deliberate sabotage- things that can end your career. They are scientists not life coaches. Its unrealistic to expect them to be warm and fuzzy nursery school teachers tiptoeing around peoples feelings and being afraid to make comments just in case someone finds offence.

To be honest, it sounds like you are more annoyed at yourself. That you aren't as organised and together as this rival. By attacking your supervisor it really does feel like you are just shooting the messenger.

While I see how this may be considered tactless, imagine it from the other point of view.

Your student has busted her arse, worked 18 hour days and really done something that is impressive. You quite rightly feels she needs not only acknowledgement but encouragement, and want to instill in the rest of your team that excellence is achievable. You can either: a) say nothing and play to the jealousy or insecurity of the others. Result: the student feels she hasn't really done anything worthy of value. b) Congratulate her in front of the team and publically validate her achievement. Result: others may feel resentful.

Let me ask you this- When you DO get your PhD are you never going to mention it and never use your Dr title, because it may make people without PhDs feel insecure?

I am currently in a post doc research position at a university where I see lots of applications from psychology graduates looking for RA jobs, PhD applications etc. A lot have 2:1s and firsts and others have a wide range of research experiences. Many have publications already (like their undergrad project). Unfortunately for you admin work doesn't stack up well in comparison to someone who has more relevant experience.

The posters below are right in that it is incredibly competitive and we get a huge number of applications for advertised jobs. Most we can't really tell apart. We use a lot of word of mouth, and a lot of people that do join the team usually have recommendations from people we already know.

I know we aren't the only ones to act like this, so it may explain your lack of success so far.

The reason it is so difficult for PhDs and post docs, is because of the nature of the work we do and the law of supply and demand. It is highly competitive and there are far more PhD graduates than places for them (85% have to go on and do something else). That means if someone like you wants to take time out, someone else who doesn't have the same constraints will happily come along and take their research funding, publish more and climb the greasy pole that is academia.

No one tells you this outright but modern academia is a lot like Hollywood. A few people become internationally known superstars and they live VERY well. They have money, success and a modicum of fame. Below them is a larger segment that are in stable work, but that this is a grind and there are constant worries about money. Below them is the majority of the workforce on temporary contracts, unstable arrangements and they have to work, very, very hard for relatively little in return. Think of the hundreds of actors and actresses working as baristas in Starbucks and waitressing. Its hard for them to have children too...

The way to get around this would be to severely limit the number of PhDs awarded so that it fits the number of jobs available. This is what happens in other graduate professions and which is exactly why they can negotiate good terms of employment.

Everyone pursuing this career needs to think about what they are willing to sacrifice and how far do they want to go. What is more important for you? Family, a good work life balance but being stuck in a fairly low to moderate role in research or really going after the big brass ring?

At first glance I would recommend the advice below. It may be a simple oversight.

BUT... it may be a bit more shrewd if you check out the lie of the land beforehand. I don't know your situation and if you are being kept out of the loop deliberately, doing the equivalent of turning up and smashing on the door may not be the best way to go about getting with the "in-crowd". Is there any way you can get info about the circumstances that have kept you off the mailing lists/ meetings/ team updates etc? Don't estimate the pettiness and childishness of academia. It may be a genuine mistake, but if there is something more unpleasant it may be necessary to do some bridge building before you are able to get in those meetings.

I think you need to do some research about clinical psychology in Britain. There are no PhD/MSc courses that allow you to practice as a clinical psychologist. You have to do a DClinPsy or Psych D to be eligible to qualify. Those MScs are taught courses but do not make you qualified to do anything in clinical practice.

You have to have a recognised UK psychology degree, and lots of work experience. Its very, very hard to get onto a course (my ex girlfriend took years and she had a first class degree a masters and 4 years of working as an assistant psychologist and it was uphill all the way). To be honest, I am not even sure if they even accept foreign applicants who aren't UK residents.

I think this kind of two-faced behaviour is ingrained in academic life.

It may be impossible for you to know why you were released from your post. Bear in mind it may not at all be about you, but about something else. For example, it could have been another supervisor pulling strings to help their favoured student , or a political move at a higher level. This has nothing at all to do with you (although it directly impacts on you).

A lot of this is down to egotism, some of it is power tripping. Some of this is understandable as academia is competitive and you have to watch your own back. Believe me, It gets much much worse as a post doc, and I have had to make some really dubious decisions on the basis of what will keep me alive, rather than what is "morally right". I don't enjoy being put in this position.

Academia is no place for the sensitive, its sort of like a more intelligent Big Brother reality TV show. Much of the sniping and backstabbing is part of the hyper-competitive nature of modern universities and research. Your fellow students are at some level competitors if you think about it. There is only so much grant money/ conference spots/journal space, and everyone wants it. People are going to gun for you, either to your face or more likely behind it.

So what to do. Well, there are semi-objective sources of feedback. Anonymous Journal referees (unless you are very unlucky) are unlikely to be part of your institution, so are more likely to give realistic feedback. Non-academic support staff may be another source of help. Think about your long term goals, and see who can help you with those, and what you need to do to get their help.