Scal Capone

There's nothing wrong with an unrestrained profanity party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-PLuj3Td3Y

Oh, for fuck's sake, you fuck-faced, fucking fuckwit, I wasn't being fucking serious. Fuck!

Oh, do fuck off!

People who are offended by swear words can get to fuck.

The right is a political movement for those with a pathological absence of empathy.

Hitchens is one complicated, difficult to pin down, character. He wants the railways nationalised, but in many other ways, he's a right wing lunatic. In fact, I recently saw him in an interview with Owen Jones on Jones' YouTube channel, in which he describes the current Tory party as a left wing party.

Is he still about? Does he still think he knows more about football management than Rafa Benitez?

I did, indeed, have a similar problem when I finished my MSc. I ended up cleaning for 4 months after finishing that degree, before eventually securing my PhD studentship. Hello Andrew. I bloody well forgot me password for my original account, and the email address I used to register is one I no longer have access to.

Thanks for all of the advice so far. I would have replied sooner but I've been doing some temp work - it ends next week - so I've not had much of a chance to respond. I entered into my PhD with misty-eyed romanticism, spellbound by the academic purity of a research degree and the personal development, knowledge and kudos associated with four years developing and producing a thesis. Such was my naivety, I didn't give any consideration to notions of employability beyond academia. Firstly, I hadn't thought about being employed outside of academia; I had no intention other than to remain in academia beyond my PhD when I started it. Second, my misty-eyed sentimentality meant that the PhD was about overcoming the personal challenges it presents rather than the rewards it (might) produce(s). I cannot emphasise how difficult it is to complete a PhD. There were occasions when I worked for 6-8 weeks in a windowless lab for up to 12 hours at a time, with only one-two days off. That included working weekends. Whilst writing my PhD, I worked solidly, up to 18 hour days, from the end of September last year to January this year, with one day off. I even worked Christmas Day. It's a lonely old slog a PhD. Self-doubt, anxiety, extreme stress and depression are normal experiences for PhD students. The thing is, the process teaches you a degree of perseverance that I would doubtful get anywhere else. In general, I regret doing my PhD, I think it is has few tangible benefits for me. However, the personal development aspect is something I value immensely. The problem with all of this is that it's difficult to sell to employers. They probably suspect I'm going to do one as soon as something better comes up and I suspect some people are intimidated by my qualifications. I experienced depression after completing my thesis and went to see a mental health practitioner about it. Even they remarked to me that my education was "intimidating". It's fucking ridiculous, really, I'm just a rag-arse from Birkenhead who, after years of working in dead end, minimum wage jobs (pubs, factories, call centres etc), decided to go to university. There's absolutely nothing to be intimidated by. I'm above nobody, that's not how I roll. If I want to return to doing jobs I've done before, surely that's my personal choice? If I didn't want the job, I wouldn't have applied for it. My motivation now is the same as my motivation then, to buy food and pay for accommodation. Nobody "wants," at least in the domain of personal ambition, to be a call centre operative, or a packer, regardless of whether they have a PhD or not. The motivation remains the same, irrespective of one's education. I recently read this excellent piece on Science about the difficulties of finding a job outside of research when you possess a PhD. http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2014_10_14/caredit.a1400253 Overqualified or underqualified? By Carrie Arnold October 14, 2014 “You would think companies would be thrilled to have such a highly trained workforce at their fingertips.” —Alison Fisher After Michelle Milstein was awarded a Ph.D., her friends and family assumed she would be immune to unemployment. So when her lab at the University of Michigan lost some of its funding and her postdoc position evaporated, those closest to her were shocked. It shocked them even more when she didn’t find a new position right away. So Milstein went out on the job market, assuming that her Ph.D. would be an asset. Those three letters after her name, after all, stood for something: nearly a decade of training and the tenacity, resourcefulness, and smarts to research, write, and defend a dissertation. “I wasn’t expecting a job to be handed to me, but I thought my doctorate would at least be worth something,” she says. As unemployment stretched from weeks into months, Milstein decided that her Ph.D. was working against her. “Places don’t want to hire a Ph.D., who they will have to untrain, and then retrain. They want someone with a bachelor’s or master’s degree who doesn’t have any bad habits and will likely be willing to work for less pay,” Milstein says. On the one hand, Milstein learned she had not received training in the skills she needed to readily find work outside of academia. On the other hand she was, in a different sense, overqualified for every job she applied for. How could she be both overqualified and underqualified? As her job search continued, she asked herself this question over and over. The problem, she decided, is with the nature of doctoral programs. They train you very well in the area of your dissertation topic and award you an impressive degree, so you’re overqualified on paper. Yet they often—usually—fail to provide the additional training that makes a candidate broadly employable. That impressive degree was becoming a ball and chain, and Milstein had no idea what to do next. She isn’t alone. As science funding contracts, more scientists than ever are seeking jobs beyond academia. With just 20% of Ph.D. recipients—fewer in some fields—eventually getting tenure-track faculty jobs, they have little choice. But even as companies are hiring—even at a time of widespread claims of a shortage of candidates with scientific and technical skills—those with the most advanced training are finding themselves with few opportunities. Impressive but not useful “You would think companies would be thrilled to have such a highly trained workforce at their fingertips,” says Alison Fisher, who left academia in 2008 after completing a postdoc with the U.S. Department of Agriculture at a site near San Francisco. The problem, Fisher decided, isn’t so much that she lacks skills; the challenge is figuring out how to prove to employers that you have the training and skills they’re looking for. At first, Fisher naively thought she could complete the transition out of academia and find full-time employment in about 6 months. “I was open to lots of different careers. I talked to everyone, did informational interviews, went to career fairs,” she says. A biotech recruiter at one career fair looked at her resume and acknowledged it was impressive—but added that it was not useful for most jobs. “He said that he would have no idea what to do with me because I would need to be trained, and no one wants to hire someone that needs to be trained,” she said. “It was really sobering.” Getting past the screeners When Sarah—not her real name—graduated from a major research university with a Ph.D. in cellular biology, she already knew that she didn’t want to go into academia. She began applying for jobs online but never heard anything back. Friends told her this wasn’t unusual and encouraged her to keep trying. Eventually, she snagged an interview with an organization she wanted to work with—not via an online application but through a mutual acquaintance. The interview seemed to go well, and the manager encouraged her to apply online for the position. Sarah gave the manager a puzzled look. “I already applied online. Didn’t you get my application?” she asked. The manager’s reply was shocking: “human resources usually throws out applications from Ph.D.s because they think Ph.D.s will bolt as soon as something better comes around,” the manager admitted to her. The manager didn’t share that view: “I enjoy having Ph.D.s around,” she told Sarah. In a flash, Sarah understood two things: HR gatekeepers may be screening out Ph.D.s’ applications before hiring managers get to see them, and at least some hiring managers are more receptive to the idea of hiring Ph.D.s. Defeating misconceptions Danielle Haney, a Ph.D. who now works as a consultant with ETHOS Health Communications, says that misconceptions about Ph.D.s are common in industry. “People think that you can’t see the big picture and that you can’t work with others,” Haney says. Overcoming such misconceptions requires repackaging yourself, Haney says. “You need to show people you have transferable skills.” How do you do that? Get together with like-minded peers and brainstorm. Rewrite your resumes and give each other tips, Haney urges. For instance: Instead of listing every publication you’ve ever authored, as you would for an academic job, summarize your research. Use that valuable resume space to illustrate skills, especially in writing, communications, and leadership—skills that are valuable to any company, no matter what degree you have. Your awareness that you have these skills, and your ability to sell them on your resume, is a clear indication that you are capable of transferring them to new tasks. That might be enough to convince a reticent hiring manager to give you a chance. Haney also urges applicants to include on their resumes experience obtained outside of the lab. Haney did her Ph.D. research on AIDS and did volunteer work with HIV-positive adolescents. She also volunteered in the local school system to help underprivileged kids learn about science and to increase their interest in science-related careers. She did it because it was fulfilling and rewarding, but highlighting it on her resume helped her find a job. Sarah echoes Haney’s advice about getting (and advertising) experience outside of the lab. While she was still a Ph.D. student, Sarah wanted to take a certificate course in science policy. Her adviser refused to let her enroll. “She said that it would distract from my work in the lab. But it would have been a major help in the freelance consulting work I’m doing now, and I really regret not pushing my case more or even just going ahead and enrolling anyway,” Sarah says. An array of nonlab experience may help demonstrate an openness to new experience and skills, which may reduce an employer’s hesitation about hiring someone who looks overqualified on paper. In her own job search, Fisher found that “overqualified” was a relative term. Sure, she had mastered tasks far more technically challenging than most she was likely to be asked to do in most jobs. Yet she lacked the computer programming skills that some biotech jobs required. Having those skills—and others—would have made her seem well-rounded instead of lopsided, with exceptional skills in only one area. (Some people call it getting “T-shaped” or, similarly, “pi-shaped.”) “Tech skills not only tend to bring people a job, but they can also lead to higher salaries,” Fisher says. Fisher finally found her dream job the old-fashioned way: by networking. She got to know another mother in her son’s preschool class. She—the other mother—was a manager with a job opening, and Fisher realized that it was for just the career she was looking for, with lots of opportunities for detail-oriented, analytical work. Fisher wasn’t fully trained for the post, but she emphasized the skills she had learned during the course of her Ph.D. research: collaboration, attention to detail, troubleshooting ability, tenacity, and project management. The mother/hiring manager saw that Fisher was a quick learner and decided to give her a chance. “It’s easy to want to focus on your specific area of research on your resume, but most workplaces want to see what skills you have, rather than your expertise in one small area of research,” Fisher says. Several years later, Fisher believes she is far more satisfied than she would have been if she had stuck to a more traditional Ph.D. career path. Still, some nonacademic employers cling tenaciously to their preconceived notions about what Ph.D. scientists can’t do. “There seems to be an inability or unwillingness of nonacademic employers to understand how research experience and skills can and do transfer outside the lab,” Milstein says. Milstein’s story doesn’t yet have a happy ending, but the story’s not over yet. She continues her job hunt, hoping that soon she’ll find an employer who can see her Ph.D. for what it is: an indication of competence and a definite asset. “The skills and experience a scientist gains from a professional career in academia can absolutely be applied and be a huge advantage in any other career, science or otherwise. However, the hurdle we face is that people outside of academia aren't able to make the connection, and only see science and lab work,” she says. The Ph.D. job-hunters job—and it often is a difficult job—is to convince employers to give you a chance to show what you can do.

Ha, there used to be loads of bottles of methanol lying around one of the labs I did my PhD in.

I'd need to study a DClinPsychol, a doctoral degree specifically for clinical psychology. There aren't enough jobs for me to contemplate it.

Another reason I wanted to do it is because I am fascinated by how the brain learns and encodes memories, and how we make decisions, particularly in the area of motivation (drugs, food etc).

Because I wanted to be an academic but I no longer want to. There's an increasing oversubscription of PhD students & postdoctoral researchers. There's a ratio of 1 available academic position to every 10 postdocs. Plus, it's becoming increasingly difficult to secure research grants for funding. My supervisor has been struggling to secure a grant for a number of years. One close friend of mine is an Oxbridge postdoc. The lab he works in had to let most of their postdocs go because the world-leading professor had his grant application rejected. These are changes that have occurred over the past few years. In addition to this, pharma are closing down much of their UK-based psychiatric drug development research.

To earn money? This is part of the problem. I've got no clear idea.

There are two points I'd like to reply to. I'd like to begin by addressing Fowlers God's point that a drug needs to be ingested by a human in order to understand its effect. The simple answer is that that's wrong. Firstly, drugs don't have an effect, they have effects (behavioural/psychological, physiological, biological, cellular and molecular, pharmacological, biochemical etc). These can be studied in laboratory settings. For example, one can repeatedly inject a group of mice with a dose of drug (e.g. 10 mg/kg of cocaine) over successive days. Immediately after injecting each animal, one might place them into a locomotor chamber and measure their locomotor response to the dose of drug. What one typically observes in this experimental arrangement is an increase (i.e. a sensitisation) in the distance each mouse travels over successive doses. That is, in comparison to the first dose of cocaine, the mice increase their motor output over subsequent doses despite the dose (10 mg/kg) remaining constant. This phenomenon is referred to in the literature as psychomotor sensitisation. What's really interesting is that it's not completely a pharmacological effect, it's also a biopsychological effect that can be partially explained in terms of classical conditioning. For instance, if one was to inject the mice who had previously received cocaine with saline instead and place them into the locomotor chambers, one would observe that these mice would travel significantly further than mice who had never been injected with cocaine (control animals). The environment (the locomotor chambers) acquires predictive properties by virtue of its relationship with drug which, through learning, comes to stimulate behaviour (conditioned drug responses). In tandem with these behavioural effects, one might observe a sensitisation in the ability of cocaine to increase the release of dopamine in an area of the brain termed the nucleus accumbens. Alcohol, like cocaine, increases locomotor output in rodents following repeated doses. This too correlates with a sensitsation of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens. The point here is that this is merely one drug-related concept (psychomotor sensitization), but it is underpinned by many complex drug effects. An entire theory referred to as "The Incentive Sensitization Theory of Addiction" is based on this underlying principle. Please don't be mistaken in thinking that drugs are addictive because they make you move more. The idea is that the incentive value of the drug also sensitises over repeated doses and this incentive sensitisation, which is underpinned by changes in the dopamine system, underscores relapse to drug taking. There are myriad behaviours associated with drug use and there are myriad effects. These can be studied in the laboratory. Next I'd like to address Zeb's point. I'm not making a moral judgement, I'm not saying people shouldn't drink alcohol. Nor am I saying that people shouldn't take cocaine. I merely made the point that the drug harm literature indicates that alcohol is the equal of cocaine in terms of the problems it creates. I've never once said these drugs are "identical". They aren't. In fact, whilst I provided an example above of how cocaine and alcohol can produce a single behavioural phenomenon (locomotor sensitisation), I also provided an example of how they differ in terms of their pharmacodynamics. They are different, but both are drugs. Difference doesn't, however, support the idea that one is more harmful than the other. Only evidence does that.

Thanks for the advice so far. Relocating is out of the question at the moment. I am married and my wife is 7 months pregnant. Indeed, most of the jobs are in the South East, but most entry level jobs won't pay me enough money to sustain a family down there, especially not London, given how extortionate rent is. I don't have as much money now as I did when I was a PhD student. I was awarded a PhD studentship by the Medical Research Council, which paid me a non-tax deductable stipend of £13,400 per year. In any case, I can't claim dole. I can't make a contributions based claim as I haven't made full NI contributions in the previous two years. Why would I have paid NI when I was a full time PhD student? I can't make a means tested claim as my wife earns £17K per annum. Benefits Britain, eh? I've never been this skint in my life.

My PhD is in Behavioural Neuroscience and my MSc is in Research Methods and Statistics for Psychology.

I have been looking for work over the past few months and I have had little success, aside from a couple of brief stints doing casual work. I suspect part of the problem is my level of education and the nature of the Merseyside economy. I have a BSc, MSc and a PhD but, despite these quals, I now find it infinitely harder to get a job than before I went to university, when I could secure a non-technical, entry level position relatively easily. Most of the advertised roles seem to be for non-technical jobs. I've had a couple of interviews. One in a call centre for a credit card company, in which they said that my interview was fine but they were concerned about my ability "to work in a controlled environment." I recently had a three-stage interview for another company for an entry level position; they said I aced the aptitude test, did okay on this horrendously wanky debate, but they said my answers during interview weren't concise enough. I suspect the issue in both instances is my education. I can't omit qualifications like my PhD, as I'd leave a four year gap on my CV. Part of the problem is that I spent 10 years gaining science training and now I am applying for non-related roles, so I suspect they doubt my commitment to their company,. Do any of you good TLW folk have any advice relating to dumbing-down a CV? I suspect I mustn't be the only person who is struggling to find a job in this market.

In light of its shameful attacks on Corbyn, I've given up on the Guardian and now buy the Morning Star instead,

But what if alcohol was prohibited and it was relatively difficult to produce and smuggle because such enterprises were being targeted by armed police, special forces, the navy, and customs and excise? I'd imagine its cost would increase significantly. Alcohol, when added to food during the cooking process, has no real psychoactive effects. If French parents want to serve it to their French kid, that's up to them, but it might go some way to explaining why the French have high rates of alcohol abuse. According to OECD data published in 2012, the French consumed more litres of alcohol per head than the British and the Irish. It matters not, if it was consumed when sat around the dining table. The French might be less inclined to binge than the British, but they record more alcohol related deaths per year than us. Probably because they consume more alcohol than we do.