Pheeeeeew, confirmation report done!
It's now in the hands of my thesis committee consisting of: my primary and secondary supervisors, person who will replace my current primary supervisor next year (she is relocating to Oz), my Australian supervisor and my adviser. They have two weeks to read and assess it. Then we shall all meet (well, except for my Australian supervisor, as he is all the way Down Under) and discuss it.
The meeting is often referred to as a first year viva and I wonder just how viva-like it will be. I will need to prepare a presentation and give a talk about my progress so far and future plans, after which I will be questioned by the committee on the contents of my talk and report. They are supposed to assess my progress over the past 10 months and decide whether I am a good PhD candidate and able to get a thesis together in a timely fashion. If they are happy I can continue doing my PhD. If not... ciao!
Tuesday, 30 June 2015
Tuesday, 16 June 2015
PhD Talk interview
I have done an interview for the great PhD Talk blog. If you don't know it, you should definitely check it out: Eva does a great job, there is sooooo much good advice over there. I really like all the guest posts too, it's nice to hear from a variety of people from different backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
I am a sucker for workflows and optimisation, so the new series of posts describing how different academics work was going to be a must-read for me. Eva was looking for more academics to take part in the series and I thought why not?
If you would like to read the interview you can find it here: This is how I work!
I am a sucker for workflows and optimisation, so the new series of posts describing how different academics work was going to be a must-read for me. Eva was looking for more academics to take part in the series and I thought why not?
If you would like to read the interview you can find it here: This is how I work!
Sunday, 31 May 2015
First year confirmation/upgrade
Did you know that technically first year PhD students are not quite PhD students yet?
Yep, if one does not make enough progress in the first year, one might be asked to leave*. Enough to say that I don't want to be the one.
In order to be allowed to continue as a PhD student one has to pass their first year. This is sometimes referred to as confirmation, sometimes as an upgrade. Depending on the university the timing of the confirmation might vary - I've heard that some people do theirs after 6 months. Mine is at the 10 month mark.
I'll outline what I need to do in order to pass below.
Report
First of all I need to write a "project introduction & progress report". From the guidelines:
Viva
The second part of the assessment involves a viva.
I need to arrange a venue, date and time that suits all members of my PhD committee. Hopefully they are all free at one point!
"In the viva you are expected to give a brief talk, approx 15-20 minutes, summarising the progress on your research project."
This should be easy enough, as I recently gave a nearly 50 minute long talk on my project. Giving a short talk has its own challenges, but clearly I have enough to talk about for 20 minutes, so at least that's good to know.
"After your talk there will follow a discussion covering (among other things) the contents of your report and progress to date, any training you have completed, seminars you have attended etc. The viva also includes an opportunity for you to report on your supervisory arrangements in the absence of your first supervisor and vice versa."
I guess this might go a few different ways. I could be grilled during the discussion or it could be a friendly chat. We will see.
Either way it will be good to have a better idea whether I'm making enough progress. This is one thing that I find quite difficult about doing a PhD - each PhD is unique, each project different, so it's hard to know if I am doing enough.
Wish me good luck!
*(potentially being awarded a Masters degree as a consolation prize)
Yep, if one does not make enough progress in the first year, one might be asked to leave*. Enough to say that I don't want to be the one.
In order to be allowed to continue as a PhD student one has to pass their first year. This is sometimes referred to as confirmation, sometimes as an upgrade. Depending on the university the timing of the confirmation might vary - I've heard that some people do theirs after 6 months. Mine is at the 10 month mark.
I'll outline what I need to do in order to pass below.
Report
First of all I need to write a "project introduction & progress report". From the guidelines:
"As well as indicating your knowledge of the field and progress so far, the report should set out plans for the future, with appropriate indicative time-lines. If papers/manuscripts have been produced they can be included as appendices, but not in the body of the report."
A bit scary that people might expect papers to have been produced by now, but lets skip that for a moment. While I don't think anyone actually enjoys writing reports I think this one might be quite useful. It will be good to go over everything and bring it all together. I hope it will also serve as a handy summary of the analyses and results in the future.
Viva
The second part of the assessment involves a viva.
I need to arrange a venue, date and time that suits all members of my PhD committee. Hopefully they are all free at one point!
"In the viva you are expected to give a brief talk, approx 15-20 minutes, summarising the progress on your research project."
This should be easy enough, as I recently gave a nearly 50 minute long talk on my project. Giving a short talk has its own challenges, but clearly I have enough to talk about for 20 minutes, so at least that's good to know.
"After your talk there will follow a discussion covering (among other things) the contents of your report and progress to date, any training you have completed, seminars you have attended etc. The viva also includes an opportunity for you to report on your supervisory arrangements in the absence of your first supervisor and vice versa."
I guess this might go a few different ways. I could be grilled during the discussion or it could be a friendly chat. We will see.
Either way it will be good to have a better idea whether I'm making enough progress. This is one thing that I find quite difficult about doing a PhD - each PhD is unique, each project different, so it's hard to know if I am doing enough.
Wish me good luck!
*(potentially being awarded a Masters degree as a consolation prize)
Thursday, 30 April 2015
Demonstrator's reflections
I was a demonstrator at a fieldcourse recently. As much as I enjoyed the whole experience it made me wonder about the position that demonstrators are put in, how we are perceived by students and the consequences of it all.
Perception
I could see that the students were treating us, the demonstrators, differently than they were treating the PIs. While I understand that we are not as "scary" and much closer to the students' age, I wondered whether there was more to it. Do they pick up on the academic hierarchy that much?
Label
Does it start with the label demonstrator itself? If demonstrators have the exact same responsibilities as the PIs when it comes to supervision of the ongoing projects during the fieldcourse (we might have different outside the fieldcourse, but that shouldn't matter), then why do we get a different label? Doesn't this label suggest that we are somehow less worthy as "teachers"?
I could clearly see that some students had doubts about the quality of things I was telling them - they would ask the PIs the exact same question after I've given them the answer (and when the PI would give them the same answer they'd listen...). This seemed to be the case more often with male than female students too.
Social cues
I also wonder whether it's the attitude of the PIs towards the demonstrators and maybe even demonstrators' attitude towards the PIs that complicates things more. PIs are unlikely to perceive PhD students as their true equals and vice versa. I imagine that students pick up on that too. They seemed amazed that I go to the pub with the PIs: in the eyes of the students the PIs are demigods. What is it like? they would ask, full of awe, wide-eyed, hungry to get a glimpse of the glamour of pub-going. I didn't really know how to respond, I felt like I was crashing all their hopes and dreams by telling them that the experience is not life changing.
Consequences
If the students generally think that the quality of the demonstrators (their knowledge, work, ideas etc.) is lower that that of the PIs when it comes to teaching... Couldn't that mean that the groups supervised by demonstrators might be unhappy because they didn't get a PI, a real teacher/researcher? I'd hate my students to feel like they were worse off or missed out, or that their education was compromised because a demonstrator (me) was put in charge of them rather than a PI.
I also imagine the whole situation could easily be made worse if PIs talk over demonstrators, interrupt them or question them in front of students. United front would be best here, if everyone has the same responsibilities and authority then this should be made clear to students and supported by appropriate behaviours throughout the course/lab/class.
Disclaimer: Of course to some degree this could be overthinking. But as I perceive thinking as a useful exercise. I have also shared and discussed some of those thoughts with other demonstrators and I found that I am not alone. Just to be clear: those are general musings and not necessarily linked to any particular events at this specific fieldcourse.
Perception
I could see that the students were treating us, the demonstrators, differently than they were treating the PIs. While I understand that we are not as "scary" and much closer to the students' age, I wondered whether there was more to it. Do they pick up on the academic hierarchy that much?
Label
Does it start with the label demonstrator itself? If demonstrators have the exact same responsibilities as the PIs when it comes to supervision of the ongoing projects during the fieldcourse (we might have different outside the fieldcourse, but that shouldn't matter), then why do we get a different label? Doesn't this label suggest that we are somehow less worthy as "teachers"?
I could clearly see that some students had doubts about the quality of things I was telling them - they would ask the PIs the exact same question after I've given them the answer (and when the PI would give them the same answer they'd listen...). This seemed to be the case more often with male than female students too.
Social cues
I also wonder whether it's the attitude of the PIs towards the demonstrators and maybe even demonstrators' attitude towards the PIs that complicates things more. PIs are unlikely to perceive PhD students as their true equals and vice versa. I imagine that students pick up on that too. They seemed amazed that I go to the pub with the PIs: in the eyes of the students the PIs are demigods. What is it like? they would ask, full of awe, wide-eyed, hungry to get a glimpse of the glamour of pub-going. I didn't really know how to respond, I felt like I was crashing all their hopes and dreams by telling them that the experience is not life changing.
Consequences
If the students generally think that the quality of the demonstrators (their knowledge, work, ideas etc.) is lower that that of the PIs when it comes to teaching... Couldn't that mean that the groups supervised by demonstrators might be unhappy because they didn't get a PI, a real teacher/researcher? I'd hate my students to feel like they were worse off or missed out, or that their education was compromised because a demonstrator (me) was put in charge of them rather than a PI.
I also imagine the whole situation could easily be made worse if PIs talk over demonstrators, interrupt them or question them in front of students. United front would be best here, if everyone has the same responsibilities and authority then this should be made clear to students and supported by appropriate behaviours throughout the course/lab/class.
Disclaimer: Of course to some degree this could be overthinking. But as I perceive thinking as a useful exercise. I have also shared and discussed some of those thoughts with other demonstrators and I found that I am not alone. Just to be clear: those are general musings and not necessarily linked to any particular events at this specific fieldcourse.
Monday, 13 April 2015
Demonstrating on a marine ecology fieldcourse
I have demonstrated during a few practical labs and I've also done some essay marking before. But this was the first time I was demonstrating on a fieldcourse. It was so much fun, I loved it!
It was a week long marine ecology residential fieldcourse, very hands on. We were based at a field centre on the Great Cumbrae island, which many people associate with its only town - Millport. There is a variety of marine habitats easily accessible there, with sandy, muddy and rocky shores with different levels of exposure. Perfect for research and teaching.
There were several PIs and three demonstrators (including me). Each of us had their own group of students to supervise; there were four students in mine. I have to say that I was rather impressed by the commitment of the vast majority of the students. Thankfully my group was no exception, they were all hard working and keen young scientists. There is nothing quite the same as watching young people learn and enjoy the process, watching them figure out problems and improve, gain confidence and learn from their mistakes. I like teaching!
Even though I enjoyed the course a lot, I found some aspects of it a bit tricky from a logistics, lets call it, point of view. I think it deserves a separate post, so keep your eyes peeled.
It was a week long marine ecology residential fieldcourse, very hands on. We were based at a field centre on the Great Cumbrae island, which many people associate with its only town - Millport. There is a variety of marine habitats easily accessible there, with sandy, muddy and rocky shores with different levels of exposure. Perfect for research and teaching.
There were several PIs and three demonstrators (including me). Each of us had their own group of students to supervise; there were four students in mine. I have to say that I was rather impressed by the commitment of the vast majority of the students. Thankfully my group was no exception, they were all hard working and keen young scientists. There is nothing quite the same as watching young people learn and enjoy the process, watching them figure out problems and improve, gain confidence and learn from their mistakes. I like teaching!
Even though I enjoyed the course a lot, I found some aspects of it a bit tricky from a logistics, lets call it, point of view. I think it deserves a separate post, so keep your eyes peeled.
Sunday, 29 March 2015
SCAB conference
Yesterday I went to the Scottish Conference on Animal Behaviour (SCAB) at the University of St Andrews. It's still very early in my PhD and I was unsure whether I'd have enough for a good talk, so I decided to present a poster. I think it was a good call that allowed me to enjoy all the brilliant talks without feeling stressed.
I enjoyed the day and was really impressed by everyone presenting. The talks included: use of landmarks in hummingbirds, information use and transit in nuthatches, cognition and nest building in birds, morphometrics of tools used by crows... And even observational learning in African Greys!*
My poster won the best poster prize** too! First poster presented at a conference :] Pretty chuffed :]
*parrot geek here
**chocolates. One should always be fed chocolates for presenting stuff!
I enjoyed the day and was really impressed by everyone presenting. The talks included: use of landmarks in hummingbirds, information use and transit in nuthatches, cognition and nest building in birds, morphometrics of tools used by crows... And even observational learning in African Greys!*
My poster won the best poster prize** too! First poster presented at a conference :] Pretty chuffed :]
*parrot geek here
**chocolates. One should always be fed chocolates for presenting stuff!
Sunday, 22 March 2015
Course: Spatial Analysis in R
Course title: Spatial Analysis of Ecological Data in R, organised by PR~statistics.
The course was really extensive. Each day we did at least one new "module". Have a look at their website for the list: Spatial analysis course.
It was one of the hardest courses, if not the hardest one, I have ever done. By Wednesday afternoon I was nearly in tears. Frustration with R was taking over - the course material was really tough and pretty much all new to me and on top of that we had to write our R scripts from scratch. Which for me was as close to impossible as one can get. While I understood the concepts I really struggled to apply the knowledge effectively and work through assigned tasks, as my coding knowledge was letting me down.
I have to admit, during the course I wasn't sure how much use it all would be, since I felt like I wasn't getting through enough of the practicals. However (and this is a big however!) during the last day we split into smaller groups and discussed our own data. I managed to get some feedback on my ideas and some tips about future analyses. It was really, really, really useful! In the end we were also given copies of all the code necessary to complete all the practical tasks. I really think that I should be able to go over things again in my own time and use everything I learned.
This course ate more than half my yearly PhD-expenses budget, but I think it was worth it in the end and I would recommend it if you are interested in spatial analysis. Things would probably be easier if you know a bit of R (even better if you know a lot of R). If you don't know R, but you want to do it, be prepared for some really hard work and likely a bit of confusion and frustration too.
There is something more this course reminded me of, which I think is really important: if you struggle, talk to other people! I can't stress this enough. So many others on the course struggled and knowing that made me feel less alone and less hopeless.
The course was really extensive. Each day we did at least one new "module". Have a look at their website for the list: Spatial analysis course.
It was one of the hardest courses, if not the hardest one, I have ever done. By Wednesday afternoon I was nearly in tears. Frustration with R was taking over - the course material was really tough and pretty much all new to me and on top of that we had to write our R scripts from scratch. Which for me was as close to impossible as one can get. While I understood the concepts I really struggled to apply the knowledge effectively and work through assigned tasks, as my coding knowledge was letting me down.
I have to admit, during the course I wasn't sure how much use it all would be, since I felt like I wasn't getting through enough of the practicals. However (and this is a big however!) during the last day we split into smaller groups and discussed our own data. I managed to get some feedback on my ideas and some tips about future analyses. It was really, really, really useful! In the end we were also given copies of all the code necessary to complete all the practical tasks. I really think that I should be able to go over things again in my own time and use everything I learned.
This course ate more than half my yearly PhD-expenses budget, but I think it was worth it in the end and I would recommend it if you are interested in spatial analysis. Things would probably be easier if you know a bit of R (even better if you know a lot of R). If you don't know R, but you want to do it, be prepared for some really hard work and likely a bit of confusion and frustration too.
There is something more this course reminded me of, which I think is really important: if you struggle, talk to other people! I can't stress this enough. So many others on the course struggled and knowing that made me feel less alone and less hopeless.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)