Thanks da boss & revenent reiko:
Maybe this PhD isn't for you, but that doesn't really mean a lot. No two PhDs are THAT alike, to be honest. A lot depends on supervisor, the type of work you're doing and the amount of "ownership" you have of your work. I think a lot of science research is pretty mechanical, and you don't get a lot of real control. It can seem like you're just a cog in a big machine.
However, the successful candidates I have seen have shared the following traits:
-Picking an achievable topic and or an area that does not require skills they do not posses (eg. large scale logistical skills were what I lacked, as I was conducting a nationwide epidemilogical survey out of the back of a nissan micra).
-A strong personal work ethic and a robust ability to accept their own errors and move on from them. (If you spend a lot of time feeling crap because you're not working, you'll end up working even less).
-Maturity and experience. (Overwhelmingly, the PhD candidates who did a masters first do better. They are just more confident, better at managing themselves and their supervisors. One friend of mine tanked his first genetics phd, took some time doing a masters in forensic genetics while working in Game, and is now powering through a PhD in kidney issues in diabetics in no time at all, with very little stress.)
-A supportive superivsor and a good environment to work in. (Some labs are filled with neurotic insecure lunatics who are poison to work with. Others have more balanced populations. Some supervisors are egomaniacal psychopaths who use students as punching bags. Others are supportive and enthusiastic mentors. It's really important to scope out a supervisor beforehand.)
-Pragmatism. (In a science PhD this is sort of the dirty little secret. You don't try and do the best science you can, as often that's so much work that you will break under the stress. You make compromises and accept that you're going to do the best science you can with the resources you have, and that you can't make up for lack of resources with superhuman effort. Or at least, most people can't. YMMV with this one, but for "normal" people doing PhDs I do think it's a useful survival trait.)
I need to 'develop' the skills I am to use... but in a way it's like trying to paint without knowing about colours or brushes. You don't know what you can do. It seems so slow.
None of my friends went on to a PhD. I moved from a job in a forensic lab to do it. I lived in the area for 6 months before starting.
Tutor is ok but seems to expect me to be 'in the lab' 150% of the time. Even when something's bubbling along... it's difficult. I'm also in the same office as him and his post doc who is quite cold to me in particular.
flashman:
One thing I found with academia is that its easy to compare yourself with others who appear to be doing better and then get down about it.
A few years in the outside world showed me that people care far more about the actual work you do then the letters after your name. It's just a pity I'm a lazy sod
This is true - 'everyone' elses experiments seem to be working but the other people are 'professionals' (not PhDs or post docs but actual full time scientists) thankfully they are helpful and friendly.
I've been feeling a bit better today but I hope that it will start to work
