I agree in principle, Apollo. However, academia is often described as cut-throat, with people trying to get research published before others do the same, and even people publishing work to try to discredit other's work. Isn't this just the same thing - not liking the game, but playing it anyway?

It sounds to me like you're no more than a year away from completing. Therefore, why not wait 1 year - I know it a year older, but 40/30 vs 41/31 isn't much, and you get to carry your baby in a nasty chemical-free environment. Better for mother and baby...

The lab I was in last year, we had radio 1 on, and sometimes my supervisor would put his cassettes on. Having said that, he was one of the most likeable academics I've ever met, and was one of the few bosses who manages to tread the line between getting you to do your work, and being someone you like and respect at the same time.

I think that, with the majority of people, and I assume that PhD students are included in this, having completed a degree successfully, giving someone freedom pays off when they give their own time for something. Impose silly restrictions, and they'll become resentful and not contribute anything above the bare minimum.

It seems frankly ridiculous that some PhD students have to be in at a certain time each day. Some people work best at night, and tend not to do as much in the morning, while some are the opposite. I think that if people are made to do something as ridigly as that, they tend to be less willing to do things in their spare time.

He insists?!?! Right now?!?! Has he got a bet with a mate about the date you give birth?

If it were me (and I'm not a female so it couldn't be), I'd delay it. Some of the chemicals you're using could potentially be teratogenic, and even if you're using adequate ventilation and protection for yourself, I wouldn't want to risk it with a baby. Also, the lab work and write up will be quite hard work, I presume, and giving birth could come before you finish, meaning a fairly long break. IMO it would be better to wait until you've finished it all, or if this isn't possible, at least until the lab work is done.

I have, in past interviews, been asked whether I would continue to work in the field when I got the PhD. I think scientists and research councils see the grant as an investment in scientists of the future, and not just living expenses for someone who will do some work for them.

When labs are quiet they can be the most godawful places around. If there's chatty people and maybe a radio, it makes it all so much more pleasant.

True Shellyanne, but I have two problems with what you say. First, there's always bound to be some people who accept something, and then get the chance of something better for them. Are you saying that they shoulnd't accept a better project if they've already got a place? Second, some people are interested in more than one narrow area, and so it's hard for them to know whether something they find is the best they're likely to get. It's obviously not helped by the fact that PhD's can be advertised all year round.

One final point - is it worth "sticking to morals" and doing something for 3 or 4 years, and which in all likelihood will have a significant impact on your future career, when something which you would prefer is available?

Sounds selfish I know, but isn't that the way it has to be?

Well, firstly, does that average include your first year, or is it second year only? Also, I think it depends on the marks gained in exams related to the PhD. For example, if two people both have your average, but one has 75% in a neuroscience module and 50% in a pharmacokinetics modules, and another person has the reverse, the former would be at an advantage with a neuroscience-related PhD. When all's said and done, I would suggest that they're more likely to look at your references than one or two exams scores, especially second year exams. They'll also want to see how you perform in interview.

I quite agree Adem - indeed, from the information I gave them, they didn't really have any notion that I'd turned it down as anything more than a whim. But I felt the decision was the right one, and I think that if I'd started the PhD, I'd only have ended up quitting a few months later. Rock and a hard place really.

Hehe piglet - I meant the next US as in "a popular place for academics to relocate to abroad", as opposed to any intrinsic similarities between the two countries. I know where I'd rather go

Ok, here's my story. I got offered a PhD last January at Bristol. Turned it down (didn't accept at all) a week later.

Then, in April, got offered another one, in Sheffield. Accepted that. However, I was rather ill over the summer, especially towards the end of summer, and realised that I was in no fit state to do the PhD, so withdrew. The PhD was supposed to start in the last week of September, and I withdrew about 4 days before. There were two supervisors - was was extremely disappointed but wished me luck with the future, and one said that my decision was disgraceful - having said that, I didn't give them the full story about the illness as I didn't really want to.

I think the point about the tight knit community isn't a problem here, as if you withdraw it'll be because you have a place on another course. If I were you, I'd apply for the PhD and the clinical courses, and see what happens.

I'd imagine the worst months for PhD people are Jan, July, August, and September - ie when the undergrads are away. I remember when I was working as a researcher (paid, not student), I found these times tedious as the uni was almost dead.

Sugar_student, I really feel sorry for you. From posts of yours which I've read recently, you seem to be a complete slave to your work, and that's about it. I'd imagine that if everyone else had it like you do, there'd be almost no-one doing a PhD. Surely it's too much?!