PhD support group?

CrazyChemist_2

misskool wrote:

:rotfl:
:rotfl:
:rotfl:
I am a trained biochemist who moved over to the dark side, I now study genetic interactions and signaling pathways. I use Drosophila as a model for innate immunity.
Is that genetics dressed as Biochemistry? The Biochem Dept at one Oxbridge uni seems to think it's ok. They could be wrong...

EDIT: Can someone reassure me that I'm not the only sad freak working on my PhD on one of the most beautiful August day we've had this year??

Eugh Yuk. Genetics. :rotfl: You're a fraud!!!!!!

How far through the Ph;)

CrazyChemist_2

misskool wrote:

:rotfl:
:rotfl:
:rotfl:
I am a trained biochemist who moved over to the dark side, I now study genetic interactions and signaling pathways. I use Drosophila as a model for innate immunity.
Is that genetics dressed as Biochemistry? The Biochem Dept at one Oxbridge uni seems to think it's ok. They could be wrong...

EDIT: Can someone reassure me that I'm not the only sad freak working on my PhD on one of the most beautiful August day we've had this year??

Eugh Yuk. Genetics. :rotfl: You're a fraud!!!!!!

How far through the PhD are you now??

cupid_s

studentphil wrote:

It is true to say that some people with PHDs can have a chip on their shoulder about how good they are

I also think people without a PhD can have a chip on their shoulder. the 'you don't need a PhD to be intelligent', 'I know more than them anyway', 'PhDs are a waste of time' etc etc. I hear these statementsqutie often.

Whilst someone without a PhD may be equally as clever as someone who has one, the person with a PhD has proven that they can work bloody hard, sometimes having to work 13/14 hour days plus weekends for relatively little financial reward for the hours they put in.

They can carry on working on the same subject for almost 4 years even though at times they probably hate it and they can produce data worthy of being published in good journals.

Ok someone without a PhD might be able to do that - but there's no proof either way.

studentphil

misskool wrote:

It does make me brighter in my phd subject than the person who hasn't done it.

That is true.

misskool wrote:

If a person has done research on the subject they are teaching for many years, surely they will have more knowledge about the subject than you do? Perhaps what you are trying to say is that they are not very good at presenting what they are trying to teach?

That is just what I said, that they will be very bright but their teaching ability can be limited.

studentphil

cupid_stunt wrote:

I also think people without a PhD can have a chip on their shoulder. the 'you don't need a PhD to be intelligent', 'I know more than them anyway', 'PhDs are a waste of time' etc etc. I hear these statementsqutie often.

Whilst someone without a PhD may be equally as clever as someone who has one, the person with a PhD has proven that they can work bloody hard, sometimes having to work 13/14 hour days plus weekends for relatively little financial reward for the hours they put in.

They can carry on working on the same subject for almost 4 years even though at times they probably hate it and they can produce data worthy of being published in good journals.

Ok someone without a PhD might be able to do that - but there's no proof either way.

I do not have a PHD and I do not have a chip on my shoulder for not having one. :eek: :eek: I agree a PHD is a lot of hard work and a huge achievement that goes without saying!!

cupid_s

surprisingly there are people who are very bright and are amazing lecturers.
the head of my undergrad course is one example

melancholly

i'm very old-fashioned in my views on lectures - i think that they should be a starting point for students to go off and do reading. if people choose to 'read for' a degree (to coin a very little used phrase these days!) then the responsibility to learn should be theirs! not everyone who does research is a great communicator - but students can always ask questions for clarification and read around the topic for a full understanding. even if someone isn't a wonderful lecturer they will provide a list of what they think (in their expert opinion!) are the key references in the field......

i guess i feel like university is seen by many as an extension of school - you write down what someone says and regurgitate it during an exam, rather than an opportunity to find out information and learn to think through problems on your own..... and i think that's sad! (and i guess that has something to do with why i'm doing a phd!)

anyway - i should stop this work avoidance and get back to editing a paper!!!

studentphil

cupid_stunt wrote:

surprisingly there are people who are very bright and are amazing lecturers.
the head of my undergrad course is one example

I know there are some really good ones

studentphil

On the issue of students looking bored in lectures that is because research has proven time after time that lectures are an ineffective teaching method.

Read for a degree, that is a laugh as you can never get hold of any books on the reading list. You can get hold similar books if you are really lucky.
However, most of time you are stuck with the reading packet and what is on the online databases.

cupid_s

i know with our degrees almost all our reading was online papers. all of which the uni subscribes to and can be easily accessed through any uni computer.
we had about 2 books on our reading list in the third year. One everyone had bought and the other I got for 50p from Oxfam books by the corn exchange