I think some supervisors like to think that the University was built up around them!

What came first, the PhD student or the supervisor?

well, I guess that if he can point out exactly what you are doing wrong then you should probably try and correct it and try again. However, if he is just saying you did it wrong now go away and work out what it is yourself thats not really very useful (esp as you know that you have done nothing wrong). Just repeating it a million times wont help. There should be sound scientific reason why it isnt working. If he cant provide that then you have a pretty good argument that there is nothing wrong with the protocol.

Does he suggest that everything you do is wrong? Or just things that go against what he wants to happen? If he has no reason to doubt your ability normally then he should have no reason when something doesnt work the way you want it to work. Maybe you should talk to someone else in your department who knows something of this field. See if they can spot any problems with your protocol.

Doing it wrong three times seems unlikely (though if you think you know the protocol inside out it is possible to unconsiously do the same thing wrong each time).

Has your supervisor sat down and gone through the protocol with you? Atempted to find out where you may have gone wrong? If not, I dont think it is really fair to make you keep on repeating it (as what will you change/do differently). Really he needs to do this, as just saying you did it wrong is not really very constructive.

When you say replicates do you mean at least three inderpendant experiments? Because if not and you havent repeated it at all yet then that is prob the first thing to do. This would also add weight to the fact that you didnt do it wrong as you are less likely to do it wrong three times in a row (as long as you dont go into autopiolt).

I would suggest looking at how your protocol compares with the published work. Maybe there is something subtly different which gives different results (eg temperature, timings, buffers etc etc). I have heard of cases where someone has published work, others have repeated, couldnt and subsequently found out there was a contaminant responsible for the observed result in the published work.

What does your supervisor want you to do about it then? Has he provided construtive advice?

Dont know if I know that much, after all I havent made a million .

I read quite a bit when I started out. When moneys involved I find it hard to just jump in without trying to know everything about it. There is also tax on dividends, but im not sure how that works (ive never made dividends but its something like 10% lower tax bracket, 30% higher tax bracket and 10% flat when in an isa). Again, it all depends on how much you earn and whether you go over your anual allowance. However, it will certainly complicate your tax return.

Good Luck with your investment!

They need an edit function here. You will have to pay CGT when you make over 9000 pounds profit. So you may not need to worry if all you will invest is £100.

One other thing you should perhaps think about is tax. You will have to pay capital gains tax on any profit you make on your shares. As far as I know, the only way to avoid this is to open a maxi isa. The problem here is that you are at the whim of the bank who will pick the shares etc for you. There are online borkers who will let you pick your own shares within an isa, but as far as I know they will charge you anually for the privelge. Still, may be worth looking into.

Finding time to research all these companies is prob the hardest thing, which is why most people are quite happy for their bank/finacial institution to do it for them. I think funds that track the index are the safest (that nearly always goes up).

Depends. For a fairly wide portfolio with investments in a wide range of areas I think the general trend is upwards (profit). However, for a single individual company things are more variable. If you invest now, that company could go either way (hence why investing in a range of companies is safer, as those that lose will be ofset by those that increase). However, if of course you have a feeling about a company, for example a new biotech company, then long term investment in just that one company could yield rewards. Investing only £100, it prob doesnt matter what happens to it that much though. Of course you may need to invest more money (takes money to make money) to see big gains.

As I was saying, I have only invested in a few small companies and apart from the one I sold early the rest dont seem to be going anywhere, though I am hopeful for the next 5 years.

My current investment (around 2-3 years now) has gone nowhere and doesnt look like it will anytime soon.

I have done a bit. Used an internet broker that allows me to pick a company and then invest as much as I like, though they add on a charge for doing it. There are a fair few out there, so you need to look for the one that offers you what you want (for me it was a low one off charge). I havent made much, I dont really have the time to do all the research required, and certainly not the money to take many losses.

You can buy shares any company, but as places like Tesco are around 300p a share, you get far fewer shares. Not that it really matters, its more about % increase than the number. Small companies are often much riskier, you are likely to lose a lot, but then again you can make great gains. I invested in a small company, and nothing happened for about 2 years. I got bored and sold them for about a £100 profit. If I sold 2 weeks later it would have been about £20000. live and learn.

Yes I was thinking about a sticky. Though to be honest there is nothing wrong with that FAQ. Its just not overly informative on certain common issues such as morgages, which I guess is the main point of this thread. So it could be that the FAQ is either expanded or given subsections for certain common questions. Thats why I suggested a wiki type thing, as this site itself is not really responsible for answering such questions.

Or maybe an FAQ for more common questions. Or a link to a wiki or something with answers to common questions. Then people with knowhow could update them or somesuch.

It would indeed be good if all PhD students were funded. Though for more reasons than just money. If that happened then it would perhaps limit the number of PhDs (only have a PhD if get say govenment funding) and thus help to increase the value of academics. Though of course the system would need a shake up to ensure that all fields had either equal or representive funding.

The main problem is that it would severly limit the number of people who can do PhDs, which I doubt many people here would perhaps agree on.