So I had my viva this morning. 3.5 hours and I felt like I was run through the mill. The clinician everyone thought wouldn't know much about electrophysiology was actually s**t-hot on my area. I felt like a total fraud in his presence and I couldn't argue with anything he said. In summary, the verdict was "deferred decision, pending major corrections".
I have to literally reanalyse everything using a different parameter and I have no idea whether my original findings/conclusions will be the same. My examiners thought I gave a good viva and that I shouldn't need to do another one. However, I think they didn't want to kick me while I was down. What I was thinking would be an intellectually stimulating chat turned out to be an admission of naiveity.
They explained that the volume of work was too much for 3 months ( minor corrections) and given that I have a full time job, giving me major corrections (12 months) was more appropriate.
As this was something that was evidently a problem before I started writing my thesis, I feel angry and frustrated at my supervisors for not picking this up beforehand.Has anyone else had a similar experience? I need reassurance :(

Hey Pennatula,

Try going into 'Format Graph' (found in the 'Change' box at the top of the screen, or by double-clicking a data point on the graph) and click on the 'All' button on the top right corner of the 'Appearance' tab - this should change the 'Data set' selection to '---Change ALL data sets---'. Now any changes you make should be applied to all data sets.

Next try selecting 'Show error bars'. If the box is already ticked then un-select it and re-select it just to make doubly sure (sometimes GraphPad needs reminding). You can also select the direction of the error bars here.

Let me know if this works. Goodluck!

Thanks for your posts guys.

To clarify: it's the link between the experiment I have done and the experiment/s I want to do next (to make a start in explaining the unexpected result from the initial experiment). I have done lots of reading - and am continuing to read - about similar research. It was through this initial bit of research that I came up with a hypothesis, so I then researched the potential experiments I could do in order to test this hypothesis.

I recently had to write up the first experiment for two separate reports (one for my sponsors and one for the uni) and in both I discussed the possible explanations for the unexpected result and both supervisors have seen this. At the 'what to do next' meeting I suggested an experiment that would answer (in my opinion) a fundamental question that I envisage getting asked at my viva and/or journal article reviewers. The sequence of experiments that would follow, whatever the result, would yield some very important results not only for my thesis but for my sponsors too.

My primary supervisor has since turned round and said that maybe this particular experiment should be left until my 3rd year (I'm half way through my 2nd) and that I should concentrate on another set of experiments for the time being. The experiments he wants me to do now will not address the unexpected results I recently obtained and now I feel even more annoyed.

Has anyone else been told that particular experiments should be put off until their final year? I'm not sure whether I'm being impatient or whether my supervisor is being dumb/procrastinating.

I recently had a meeting with my 2 supervisors in order to decide ‘what to do next’. I’m sure many people have these sorts of meetings and I’m sure some people also feel like I do afterwards – that nothing ever gets sorted and the ‘big decision’ is always put off until another meeting. Anyway, during this meeting I was criticised for not making a coherent link between experiments I’ve done and experiments I would like to do next. I was also criticised for not discussing what my experimental results may mean and speculating enough.

Basically, I’m trying to figure out how a compound works in a disease state and there is next to no literature published about it. I’ve just finished a big set of experiments (in control conditions) and the results are unexpected, in fact the complete opposite to what was expected (!). I did a lot of reading and found that a related compound has a particular effect, which one paper showed to be due to a certain mechanism. Interestingly, this mechanism has a bi-directional effect (ie., in control conditions it does one thing and in pathological conditions it does the opposite). Therefore, the related compound had a particular effect in control and the opposite effect in disease.

I used this evidence from literature to come up with 2 hypotheses: if I do these experiments again in disease my compound will do the opposite to what I saw in control AND that the compound is having a particular effect which is due to a certain mechanism. The experiments for the first hypothesis are ongoing at the moment. For the second hypothesis I suggested an initial and relatively simple experiment just to see whether there was a certain difference between control and disease baseline conditions.

Like I said above, I was criticised for suggesting such an experiment because my supervisors didn’t see the link. I honestly don’t understand this as I did what any scientist/researcher would do: I researched what I could of the literature and came up with a possible explanation for apparently contradictory results. The really annoying thing – and the reason for my post – is that during the same meeting I was also criticised for not discussing my results in sufficient detail and being speculative enough. Am I missing something here??

I agree that A LOT of problems stem from poor communication between supervisors and students.

My supervisor and I openly admit that we are fairly bad at communication, but this was only after 6 months of not being able to obtain data in my first year (electrophysiology frustrations). Unfortunately, my relative inexperience in the field (and as a PhD student overall) meant that I didn't know how to get myself out of the situation of endless supervisory meetings, in which all that I could report was ''it's just not working''.

I think that it's very important for PhD students to recognise when a situation isn't going to resolve itself on its own. Some supervisors are very busy and won't necessarily realise that something is wrong. Luckily for me, another PI came to my rescue with an alternative technique that yielded lots of useful data and I have resolved never to get stuck like this again.

The decision to do a PhD shouldn't be taken lightly. It takes a lot of hard work and commitment, much like a relationship. It will put a strain on your finances, friendships and sanity - also much like a relationship.

Doing a PhD is probably the most selfish thing one can do (speaking as a PhD student myself, and married to a PhD student), as it's putting one's life (and one's partner's life) on hold for a few years. If your partner is truly willing to do this for you, then you are a very lucky person.

I'm not trying to discourage or encourage you because choosing to undertake a PhD is a very personal decision.

Goodluck!

Congratulations on starting a PhD Ender. You ask the same question that all new PhD students (including me) seem to ask when they first start. To begin with, you probably won't have much to do - and this is entirely normal!
The first week is mostly about sorting out all the admin stuff, learning your way around and having the initial safety talks etc. It is important to do as much reading around your research area as possible from the start, as later on you may find yourself short on time for reading.
Depending on your project/supervisor, you may not get into the lab straight away, and will be spending a lot of time in the office/study looking at a computer screen. This will seem quite uncomfortable at first, as you'll be watching other PhD students going back and forth from the lab and typing away frantically at their desk, looking incredibly busy. You may feel under pressure to stay late at uni, because other PhD students probably won't go home until 6/7pm. My advice to you is don't stay late because you think you have to. If you know you're not going to get any more reading done because you can't concentrate any more, then the best thing to do is go home, relax/rest etc. and start the next day refreshed and ready to go again.
Working 9-5 is perfectly reasonable, as it's good to have some sort of structure to your day, and get into a good habit of coming in at the beginning of the working day. It's all about using your time effectively - quality over quantity. I know some PhD students who spend loads of time in the office/lab, but don't actually get any work done. I also know a couple of supervisors (including my own) who understand that if I dedicate a day to reading, that I can work better at home than at uni.
When it comes around to doing experiments then it's mostly down to your own time management; do whatever works for you. Although sometimes certain experiments have time constraints of their own. For example, I can't start my experiments earlier than 9am, but I can come in as early as I like to set up. Other experiments must be finished by 7pm as the lights go out. Finally, some experiments go wrong and have to be repeated straight away, forcing you to stay late. Depending on the work you have to do, the time you spend at uni can vary massively from day to day, week to week and month to month.
I hope that helps you in some way. Good luck!

I would definitely recommend having something lined up before telling your advisor that you're going to leave. Letting them know about this without doing so can be very damaging to the student-advisor relationship, especially if you do decide to continue.

When it comes down to it, be honest about your reasons for leaving. Sure, they'll be hurt and possibly quite angry, but the least you can do is tell them the truth. Hopefully it will be appreciated in the end.

Goodluck!

I can empathise with people who no longer want to continue their PhD -it's a big commitment. Not only is it a job, it's a way of life! If you no longer have the 'get up and go' to see it through, then fair enough. Like Beefy said, you could be occupying a position that someone else wants. However, I definitely wouldn't quit until I had something else lined up.
However, there is a bit of a Catch 22 with getting a job in science. A lot of scientific jobs require experience, and a PhD can be used in lieu of experience (with all those transferable skills and whatnot). Science is also full of academic snobbery, and not having a PhD may limit career progression. But ultimately it's a personal choice, and I certainly wouldn't do a PhD for the sake of it.
Good luck!

Thank you Walminskipeas, but I don't have a choice with the mice. They are knockouts and currently the best thing available to study the receptor my research is based on.
The main problem with my situation is that although I am funded to do this PhD, all I have is the stipend and not the consumables. I don't even have a cost code in which to buy reagents or materials. I asked my supervisor to order a DNA ladder for genotyping, but they won't do it until I've asked everyone in the lab whether I can borrow theirs. In November I asked for antibodies in which to do some immunohistochemistry and they still haven't been ordered. This delay means that I can't include the experiment in my transfer/confirmation report.
I know it's the supervisor's job to make grant applications, and I appreciate that a lot of applications are turned down. However, no publications ever came of the grant my supervisor had previously, and I honestly don't think they'll be getting one any time soon. Because my supervisor doesn't have publications, or brings money, the head of department shows no interest in the research we do. I rather feel that my supervisor and I get conveniently ignored sometimes, like an unpopular relative.
I went to my very first conference recently and felt very good about presenting my work. However, due to the inexperience of my supervisor, and lack of interest from the head of department, I was publicly embarressed by a prestigious researcher in my field. I can only hope that he understood it wasn't my fault, and maybe a bit of humility will do me good. I came away feeling very disillusioned and let down.
I've been told by the 3rd year PhD student that it really isn't meant to be this way. Although it feels wrong to think it, I hope I fail my transfer/confirmation process and get recommended for an MPhil.

I'm not looking for someone to tell me what to do, but rather some thoughts and/or experiences from others that have been/are in a similiar situation. Firstly, I was asked to do a PhD by the supervisor I had for my MSc research project. They were nearing the end of a grant, but managed to secure some money so that I could be funded for the first year, with the promise that more money would come. Thinking back, I was never told what the project was about exactly, or what the aims were. I just knew that I would be working with the same transgenic mice from my MSc project. After 4 months of fruitless job hunting and living back home with the parents, I accepted the offer.
I started a year ago and I have to admit I've never felt 'settled', despite doing an MSc at the same university. At the time, the department didn't have a system in place to welcome new PhD students who started in any other month apart from October, so my Induction happened 10 months after I first registered. My supervisor got me to work straight away analysing data (basically picking up where I left off a few months before) but not actually doing anything related to the project that I was funded to do. About 4 months in I was told by my supervisor that my project was not viable due to the transgenic mice not breeding. This caused a great deal of stress and my time afterwards was spent trying to find gaps in research that could be filled with the resources available to me. Thinking back now I should have demanded a meeting with my supervisors to discuss what was going on and what my options were.
At around the 6 months mark I was 'given' a transgenic colony to look after, because the post-doc was leaving at the end of the year. Not long after that I was 'given' another transgenic colony to look after because my supervisor's 3rd year PhD student had to finish lab work because the grant had finished and money ran out.
10 months in, and there was no sign of getting more funding from the university. I had already been turned down once, and even then I wasn't officially told, not even by my supervisor. I heard it from the 3rd year PhD student, who mentioned it in passing, assuming that I already knew and were absolutely gutted that I had to find out in such a way. That very day I got in contact with another university and applied to do a PhD in a similar field. I told my supervisor that I was looking elsewhere and within a couple of weeks funding for another 2 years miraculously appeared, so I withdrew my application.
I thought my problems were over, but it came to light recently that my supervisor can't afford to keep the transgenics, and without the transgenics the research is nothing. I was never informed of this until it came out in conversation with someone else, and I just happened to be there. I've decided that I've had enough of the university, the department, not getting the full story and will leave as soon as I know that I can do a PhD elsewhere.
I welcome your thoughts.