Hi Rick,

I've never thought about wether or not people respond to answers on threads they've set up - I certainly don't mind if they don't, I see the threads as being of use to us all, not just the person asing the question - I just assume they're mulling things over.

I do agree that a postdoc forum is a good idea - we get postdocs coming on here, and although I can see why they don't want to give this up, their responses can feel a bit like the voice of the opposition! Particularly where student supervisor problems are concerned. I'll miss this site like mad when I finish though, so I can see why they're still around.

======= Date Modified 17 Sep 2009 11:44:28 =======
sorry, another double posting, don't know why...

======= Date Modified 17 Sep 2009 11:45:16 =======
Hi Ogriv,



Sounds tricky... Are you sure he's been fired? How reliable is your dissertation supervisor? There is a chance that he has duff information.



Anyhow, since you're not getting much from the voluntary work, if I were you, I'd quit anyway, because it is not benefiting you, and is taking up your own valuable research time.



You could use the start of a new term as the excuse, and say something like 'Unfortunately, I will no longer be able to work on project xyz. I'm so sorry to have to renege on my promise to continue volunteering for you during term time, but I have since found that my existing work load and schedule are, in fact, already full to capacity. I sincerely hope this doesn't inconvenience you; I wish you the best for this worthwhile and interesting project; and thank you for all that I have learned during my time working for you.'



Hope this helps. He should, really, be grateful that you volunteered at all.

Hi Michelle - as people have already mentioned on this thread, students use this forum to deal with, and get support during their darkest experiences, and during their darkest times. I love my PhD, and even with the financial hardship (I am self funded) I wouldn't sawp it for the world. have a WONDERFUL supervisor, for whom it is an honour to be a PhD student; before that, I had a dreadful supervisor, and my PhD experience was totally different. The other big factor in PhD satisfaction is your own disposition towards the work: if you enjoy research and writing to your own agenda and rythm, on a day to day level, then you're far more likely to have a positive experience; however, if you are only doing a PhD for the title Dr.; for the studentship money; or for what you think is a steady career, then you'll probably hate it.

Hi Bronny,

It sounds to me as if you will almost certainly have the grades to be accepted - although funding is an entirely diffrent matter. Even if you had a first at UG and a distinction at MA, you'd still struggle for that - literature is a very competitive field, and funding for humanities very scarce. However, I think, if you write the right proposal, and have a dynamism about what you are doing, that can sometimes win out over firsts/distinctions, providing you have good 2:1 and merit grades.

Is there any way you could look at self funding? It'd be a safety net option.

Good luck

======= Date Modified 09 Sep 2009 16:46:54 =======
that just posted twice, don't know why, mods delete this one if you like.

Sue, Bug and Smilodon - Thank you for your responses, hopefully it won't happen again, but at least now I know I can deal with it.

I think what's bothered me most is the body language after the panel, when he was standing over me, being agrresive/passionate in his expression, it was pretty intimidating. His lack of professionalism and intellectual rigour did suprise me, but now I think that's damaged him far more than me. Next time I won't sit for as long while someone stands over me like that, I'll just get up and walk away! Hopefully it won't happen again anyway.


Bug - yeah that thing about the reader/author interface is so well established and he could have said that to anyone at the conference, including himself. But! even so, the author in question has said the same thing as me about the work, and twit-wit said he'd argue the t*** with said author about that too. Anyhow, my supervisor is very happy with what I'm doing and is a far greater expert than sonny jim, so that's that. Thanks again, everyone.

Hi Keep Calm, yeah, I second Bug on the age thing. Just don't think about it, you are there because of your academic strengths, not your age.

You'll get used to it, just have a good plan of what you want to cover in the sessions, and of how you are going to do it. If you are teaching a humanities subject, it's a good idea to have some activities/tricks up your sleeve incase the discussion dries up. I'm sure there's a thread on teaching tips on the forum somewhere. Also, I find warm up/getting to know eachother excercises useful at the start of term, especially for first years, or with groups who don't know eachother. Good luck, you'll be fine.

Hello folks,

I've just had a tricky conference experience, and am wondering if any of you have been through anything similar, or have any thoughts on the situation.

I gave a paper which presented a new way of looking at a couple of texts by the same author/creator (sorry for being vague, I'm trying to maintain some anonymity), my supervisor was very happy with it, he said I proved my argument very well. When I'd finished the paper, an academic, who worked at the host university, expressed strong objections, although when I asked him to define his terms, and to give specific examples he was stumped, and couldn't - I wasn't discussing his area of expertise. He kept shouting out 'I don't agree' and after the panel he approached me (just as one of the conference organisers was telling me how good my paper and defence were, that he does this to everyone, and that she has to work with him...) and stood over me dogmatically repeating that he didn't agree, but unable to specify his terms and saying very patronising things like 'you have to understand that authors just put things in texts that don't mean anything', 'does your supervisor really approve of what you are doing?', and 'I'm trying to help you'. When I asked him about his expertise in the field he got really offended and said 'I don't have to explain my credentials'.

Anyhow - about 7 people came up to me afterwards to say they thought my paper was very good/really good, that my defense was impressive, and that he was a w***** who had been harassing other PhDs with new ideas in a similarly forceful, but intellectually flimsy, manner, basically that he was doing it because he had an agenda.

I think it all went in my favour in the end - I got very pally with the conference organisers who have to work with him, and I have the impression a couple of other academics were delighted that I'd batted him off so well, but I'm surprised because I thought conferences demanded a certain degree of professional conduct from delegates, I mean, I'm really surprised that someone with some standing in their field would behave like that. I'm sure there's a thread on here in which people say how polite delegates are at conferences, do you know if this happens a lot?

Thanks for reading, just wanted to share, this was my first conference in my field so I'm hoping future events will be better behaved.

No! but being able to drag yourself away from repeats of 'Come Dine With Me' at 3:55 on a Tuesday afternoon, most certainly is... that's true dedication.

Hi Walminskipeas, I can't claim to be a great expert on this subject, but I think the trend in financial shrinkage, all round, will continue. But! I also know this trend goes across the employment board, so, personally, I'm seeng jumping ships as futile - that it would, most probably, be a case of 'out of the frying pan and into the fire'. I'm humanitites, it might be a different story for science folks.

OK, here's how I do it:

1. I have a rough idea of the point I want to make; what my aim is.

2. If the piece is building on something else, I insert useful pre-writen sections in what I think is the relevant order.

3. I try to decide which bit I should start writing first, and if I can't think of a logical reason (what usually happens) I start wrting about whatever is firing me up the most.

3. I keep writing for days, sometimes a couple of weeks, until I have something approaching a suitable first draft.

4. I leave it for a couple of days.

5. I read through what I've written and see what is emerging as the central thread of the writing, what is geling it together.

6. I then edit out bits I don't want to use - this could mean losing half of what I've done so far, but I always save it for possible later use.

7. I decide what I need to say in order to complete the piece - then I write it; this is usually much quicker than the earlier bit of writing.

8. I redraft many times, ideally leaving a couple of days between each major redraft, but realistically, I often do it in a panic right up until the deadline for sending to my supervisor.

9. Meet with the supervisor and thrash it out in terms of writing and strength of argument - learn loads, and realise how much I could improve it.

10. Re-write in light of the above, this will take several drafts.

I haven't written a chapter yet, so this could be an early days writing process for me - only time will tell.

This is a brilliant thread, Bug; I'd give you ten stars if I could!

Thank you everybody! My skills have improved very much - and I have this feeling that, although I don't have everything sorted, I will do, in good time. Hopefully it's an epiphany, time, and my next supervisory meeting will tell - they're getting easier, even a few positive comments at the last one whoooop, whoop - I see that as a major coup.

Morning fellow Phders,

My work seems to be getting easier - is this normal? Or do you think I could be being dangerously delusional?

I had very poor supervision for my first year, but have been with a great supervisor since May. Although things seemed horribly hard four months ago, when I first began with the new one - meetings consisted of two hours of grilling and gruelling (constructive) criticism, it all seems to be getting much easier. It's still difficult, but there isn't the sense of constant, mind bending struggle that I've had these last few months. Maybe I should have that all the time - maybe I should be struggling for more, hhhmm, or maybe I've reached a natural plateau.

Anyone else felt like this?