taking the theory to the test, i taught one class for a friend who had to leave on short notice, on a topic i knew nothing about and didn't even have the course guideline. i wouldn't say it was brilliant, but it worked. still, i'm glad that it was just one class, cause the tension was so much worse than in my own classes where i just know that i know enough about the topic to handle most situations that might come up.
overall, i do think that the key thing you need to teach first year students is "how to study", that is, how to read, how to argue a point, how to write an essay, how to find stuff in the library, etc. this is not easy. but if you manage to teach them that, they will learn the rest by themselves. and you will have taught them something a lot more important than some facts about art history.

hey pamw, at my uni in the training provided for TAs they repeatedly said that TAs don't teach, they facilitate, and that you can technically do that without knowing anything about the subject. the point being that students learn much more when they work on something themselves than when someone tells them the answers.
i'm still lucky to be teaching a topic i know. but i have realized that i have been trying to "teach" them all the things i think they should know, rather than letting them find out for themselves, with the result that they don't really learn anything at all sometimes.

don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting that lamp should pursue this thing. there are other issues here, too, and it would definitely make things complicated. but your TOTAL opposition to staff-phd student relationships strikes me as overly "politically correct", seems very "american". like apparently profs won't close their office door when they have a discussion with a single student (a typical american clichee). in europe, continental europe particularly, such behaviour simply appears as odd. not saying one is better than the other. just saying that not the same values are pursued everywhere, not the same things are seen quite as equally problematic everywhere.

well rogue, they don't write about "serious issues of professional misconduct", as you put it, but rather about "serious issues of professional conduct". kind of implies, together with the rest of the text you posted, that there are serious issues but it is not NECESSARILY and automatically "misconduct".
the excerpts you posted very clearly advise against it. but they do not state that it is to be avoided in all circumstances. they give guidelines about what to do if it happens, implying that it can occasionally happen, rather than just saying "it's not allowed".
further, in relation to an earlier question. in Switzerland and Germany MOST PhD students have the status of staff. i personally find it extremely weird and experience it as a blast to my confidence that over here, what i do does not get the status of "work" at all. i concede of course that i am learning. but so are most "staff" in most jobs.

hey kronkodile
how are you doing?

oh, i was hoping that my supervisor would invite ME when i finish. hmm...

so sorry for you! i'm sending you a great big hug.

maybe going back to work is not that bad. it will give you some time off from mourning, some distraction. maybe you should grant yourself not to be perfect for the coming weeks. just do what is required, everybody will understand that you're not at your best.

my father nearly died a while ago. i know it is not the same, but it was very hard for me, too, to go back to "normal" after spending all that time in hospital, away from home, afraid of the worst and hoping for the best. but i did find that once i got over the first day back at work, it was actually quite good to have something steady. it was also good to speak to my office colleagues who were very sympathetic but obviously less emotionally involved, so provided a different angle to things. i hated being away from my family though. we really bonded in that crisis and i missed that feeling of togetherness when i had to leave for my own home.

well, i'd say yes. given that you've got the data analysis and interpretation done. so what you need to do is just arrange your papers into chapters, and write a good conclusion, right?

but it will be a draft, and it will definitely not be the best thesis ever written.

you would have to count on having to re-write large chunks of it. however, if you've basically already got a full draft, it should be possible to finish it up next to that new exciting job!
i'm not speaking from own experience... just an observation or two.

hey there,
what field are you in?

and where those four unis where you have applied so far by any chance four top-notch universities?

there are many possible reasons for rejections, and many that don't have anything to do with the quality of your application. for example, the person who would ideally be supervising you from the department where you are applying can be leaving for a sabbatical, or can have too many PhD students already. or, while the department is generally good, there might just not be the relevant expertise around for supervising you.
have you been just simply going through the regular (online?) application process? then i would suggest you get in contact with the potential supervisor first, next time you apply somewhere.
good luck!

i'm doing my PhD full time and teaching two undergraduate classes, and i've got a little job at our local careers service. the teaching is fun, it usually takes me about a day to prepare, plus I have 6 contact hours/week. i am definitely paid less hours than i work, but in a sense I don't mind, as i am also learning, and do enjoy it.
the little job at the careers service is great. it's two hours/week but i can do more if i want, and it's really well paid, and though it's intense while it lasts, it's really limited to those two hours; no preparation or such. nice extra money without too much limitation to my PhD.
overall, i feel it's manageable - though as has been said before, if you can avoid having to work, then don't.

hey there,
i did a kind of pilot study thing and applied some discourse analysis to some documents.
i was surprised at how useful the 'simple' exercise of collecting objects and subjects was. i had thought this was going to be a boring step of the analysis but it proved to be quite enlightening. especially as it is not just about making a long list of objects and subjects, but you need to categorize them in some way to make sense of it all.
so my advice to you, based solely on this very limited experience, would be to start with a limited amount of material, and code initially just for objects and subjects. btw, took me loooots longer than i had thought. then make sense of that. that's a clearcut, bitesize chunk of work which is so doable and might give you cool results, and in any case a useful inroad into starting your analysis!

also, my partner just got a first post-PhD job. he wondered before applying how much he should emphasize those "other" projects he is engaged with, apart from his PhD. he received conflicting advice. some more senior people told him to make it quite prominent as it showed his potential for exciting future research. other senior people told him to leave it out of his CV as the recruiters would probably not be looking for someone who does lots of weird stuff but rather for someone who has solid knowledge of the key aspects of the discipline.
so overall i guess you need to decide if this other publication will make you appear interested in many things and having potential for valuable new research, or if it will rather make you appear "off-center". overall it is a fine line and it can work for one job but not for the other. my own approach for the moment is to publish anything i can, as long as it does not distract me too much. i can always later decide not to make it prominent on my CV.

we had an information event about 6 months ago about "how to get a job" in our subject. the people on the panel talked about their own experience of getting a first job, but also about their much later experience of being part of recruiting panels. one professor in particular said that when recruiting, one thing they look out for is, if the candidate shows potential for new things or if it seems the candidate is an expert on their narrow PhD topic but isn't going anywhere else. a demonstratable certain broadness of interests is thus certainly a plus, except if it slows down your PhD significantly.

st. gallen has a good name in switzerland and internationally when it comes to economics, but not much in any other subject. it used to be one of the world's top business schools but i think it lost a bit of prestige. still, it attracts many international students because it still has a very good name. the MBA it offers is probably one of the better choices you can get within Switzerland.
so if you are firm about going to switzerland and are looking for reputation, then that's the place to go.
good luck!

mokey, i worked late last night, too, but didn't log on to the forum as i was really glad to get to bed once i was finished! (was preparing for a class i teach on monday mornings)

i know what you mean about feeling bad... this happens to me often and i find myself having to work consciously on it. keep telling myself "this is just how it is, how i work, the best i can do... no point in making it worse by feeling guilty about it!"
still, can't deny that i DO feel guilty about it. for example i avoid letting my housemates realize when i get up really late after a long night...