Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horrorshow)
    Is there any way that it has possibly been worthwhile? Maybe if you repeat those techniques you'll be in a better position to do them again, and faster/more efficiently?
    Yeah, I've more-or-less fixed the problem, it's just frustrating. It shouldn't take me too long to redo the experiments, thankfully.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpchem)
    Yeah, I've more-or-less fixed the problem, it's just frustrating. It shouldn't take me too long to redo the experiments, thankfully.
    Definitely doesn't sound like a waste. If you had invested all that time in experiments that subsequently weren't going to go in your report/thesis, then I'd call that a waste!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    NEB have discontinued Phire :cry2:

    In other news, I am gradually admitting that - impressive as it is that I can get into the lab for 9 having got home around 4 - I shouldn't bother. I've been useless all day
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Athena)
    Got any other restriction sites you can use instead? And are you sure the enzymes are still good, eg no one's left them out at room temperature too long, the heat block was set right etc?
    I could look into other ones, but I think it's probably more to do with my technique. The digests don't go on a heat block, they sit in an incubator at 37 for 90 minutes, maybe that's not foolproof. Or maybe it's to do with the 0.1 uL BSA which might not have made it into the reaction mixture.

    I get the sequencing results back tomorrow, that should be fairly conclusive I would have thought.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Athena)

    Have you contacted the rep to find out what the closest other product is? Or can you stockpile the stuff?
    They just want everyone to by Phusion instead, but I don't like Phusion. My PCR for the whole massive gene used to work beautifully with Phire, but has never been as good with Phusion, so I wanted to buy some even though it's supposedly inferior, but it seems they don't make it anymore. Huff.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I got their Phusion free sample pack today, along with memory stick, pen, transformation float, posters etc. I know it's gimmicky but I still think it's nice to receive free stuff (will never have a need for any Phusion polymerase but thanks )
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Horrorshow)
    I got their Phusion free sample pack today, along with memory stick, pen, transformation float, posters etc. I know it's gimmicky but I still think it's nice to receive free stuff (will never have a need for any Phusion polymerase but thanks )
    That's how I got hooked on Phire (I'm old enough that they used to give that free in the pack). There'll be someone in the department who'll take your hand off if you offer the Phusion. For most things, it's good ****.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I'm ill.

    I'm tired.

    The gel is backwards.

    WHY IS THE GEL BACKWARDS?! How am I this messed up that I don't know red from black?! :cry2:

    I want to sleep for such a long time :sad:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cirsium)
    I'm ill.

    I'm tired.

    The gel is backwards.

    WHY IS THE GEL BACKWARDS?! How am I this messed up that I don't know red from black?! :cry2:

    I want to sleep for such a long time :sad:
    Sounds like one of those days you should just forget about it all and get some sleep. Any chance of enjoying the weekend?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone ever been criticized with the above? The research is not 'Sciencey' enough? What does it mean really? Is it even a logical or concrete criticism?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What subject?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    What subject?
    Computing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Hm, it depends.

    a) At PHD level that shouldn't occur, because you should have already learned how to work sciencey. Thus if anyone doesn't work properly, it can be his research lacks a scientific approach. (e.g. only rewrite, what others have written, without analyzing; doing dumb monkey work)

    b) Or do you mean these people, who are convienced that only Humanities teach you how to think and e.g. Mechanical Engineers are in fact mechanics doing an apprenticeship disguised as a University degree because of capitalistic influence in the society? If it is the latter, it can be hard to convince them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    Hm, it depends.

    a) At PHD level that shouldn't occur, because you should have already learned how to work sciencey. Thus if anyone doesn't work properly, it can be his research lacks a scientific approach. (e.g. only rewrite, what others have written, without analyzing; doing dumb monkey work)

    b) Or do you mean these people, who are convienced that only Humanities teach you how to think and e.g. Mechanical Engineers are in fact mechanics doing an apprenticeship disguised as a University degree because of capitalistic influence in the society? If it is the latter, it can be hard to convince them.
    Wait, I don't understand lol. =/
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by kka25)
    Wait, I don't understand lol. =/
    She's basically asking who told you that your research wasn't 'sciency' enough.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I guess it can only mean that the critic believes that your research doesn't utilise a scientific methodology or analysis to a great enough extent.

    If your research is meant to be scientific in nature, then of course this would be a valid criticism.

    As to whether or not it is concrete depends on whether or not they can be specific about their objection.

    A priori, saying something is not 'sciency' enough, in the abscence of other information suggests a criticism of the propriety of the type of analysis/research focus rather than the quality thereof.

    All in all, my feeling is that 'sciency' is a childlike term and I would ask for a clearer, more specific criticism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hobnob)
    She's basically asking who told you that your research wasn't 'sciency' enough.
    Owh lol. Thank you.

    It was the panel. The panel who would admit me to the program. But not all of them stated it. It's just 2 out of 10 people. The rest of them were supportive or just quiet about it.

    The exact thing they said was my research is no longer a technical research - a research that usually has an output/tool (which is something I used to do before and they are aware of it) where now it's more of an empirical research; it's not computer sciencey enough, as one of them put it.

    I stated clearly that at this stage, I wouldn't know whether the research would come out with a tool (which is what they defined as 'technical research') or something of a procedure to solve the current problem. When they asked me to clarify my research proposal earlier, one of the panel members did interject and said that I might find the actual solution during the research period, not during the proposal - I stated during that time, I wouldn't specify what is the exact solution just yet since I wouldn't know what it is at this stage.

    (Original post by Jake22)
    I guess it can only mean that the critic believes that your research doesn't utilise a scientific methodology or analysis to a great enough extent.

    If your research is meant to be scientific in nature, then of course this would be a valid criticism.

    As to whether or not it is concrete depends on whether or not they can be specific about their objection.
    Thank you for the reply.

    I would need to use, what they called 'scientific methodology' during the research, but I'm not sure whether they would want me to do something from a pure 'computing methodology' perspective, because my work overlaps greatly with some other unrelated field, but needed in the research.

    As for the last part, if you find their reason to be not concrete, would you specify to them that it is not concrete? I would believe it is important to do so in order to defend the work and not letting them ridicule it without a proper base. But I might be wrong
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    I would need to use, what they called 'scientific methodology' during the research, but I'm not sure whether they would want me to do something from a pure 'computing methodology' perspective, because my work overlaps greatly with some other unrelated field, but needed in the research.

    As for the last part, if you find their reason to be not concrete, would you specify to them that it is not concrete? I would believe it is important to do so in order to defend the work and not letting them ridicule it without a proper base. But I might be wrong
    I wouldn't see it as being 'ridiculed'. From the additional information that you have provided, it would seem that they have already given a concrete criticism. To wit, they would seem to prefer that you use one methodology over another.

    Rather than get emotional over this point, why not come back with an advised response justifying your use of a non-traditional methodology in this field and explaining to them how it will contribute to reaching the goal of your proposal.

    Are you all at least in agreement on the intended outcome of the work?

    From what you have said, there still seems to an ambiguity as to whether they are criticising your intended goal i.e. what you intend this research to acheive or whether they are just criticising your methodology or whether they don't like either. It even seems a possibility to me that they just don't think it is a good fit within their department.
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by kka25)
    Owh lol. Thank you.

    It was the panel. The panel who would admit me to the program. But not all of them stated it. It's just 2 out of 10 people. The rest of them were supportive or just quiet about it.

    The exact thing they said was my research is no longer a technical research - a research that usually has an output/tool (which is something I used to do before and they are aware of it) where now it's more of an empirical research; it's not computer sciencey enough, as one of them put it.

    I stated clearly that at this stage, I wouldn't know whether the research would come out with a tool (which is what they defined as 'technical research') or something of a procedure to solve the current problem. When they asked me to clarify my research proposal earlier, one of the panel members did interject and said that I might find the actual solution during the research period, not during the proposal - I stated during that time, I wouldn't specify what is the exact solution just yet since I wouldn't know what it is at this stage.



    Thank you for the reply.

    I would need to use, what they called 'scientific methodology' during the research, but I'm not sure whether they would want me to do something from a pure 'computing methodology' perspective, because my work overlaps greatly with some other unrelated field, but needed in the research.

    As for the last part, if you find their reason to be not concrete, would you specify to them that it is not concrete? I would believe it is important to do so in order to defend the work and not letting them ridicule it without a proper base. But I might be wrong
    To me that just sounds more as though they were expecting you to say that your goal was to end up with a tool (even if you might not actually get there) and to be a bit more specific as to what you think the solution might be, in broad terms. Whereas you were probably hedging a bit too much, because you didn't want to make any predictions at this stage, and that confused them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jake22)
    I wouldn't see it as being 'ridiculed'. From the additional information that you have provided, it would seem that they have already given a concrete criticism. To wit, they would seem to prefer that you use one methodology over another.
    I don't see that's a concrete criticism. But I'd go along.

    Rather than get emotional over this point, why not come back with an advised response justifying your use of a non-traditional methodology in this field and explaining to them how it will contribute to reaching the goal of your proposal.
    Thanks, but once you are in a room, with 10 professors, where in the first place, they mentioned that there should be only one professor and they just mentioned that it's just an interview, not a full presentation of your work, you would somehow start to get disoriented and confused of the situation...

    Are you all at least in agreement on the intended outcome of the work?
    I would believe so, yes. But who knows, this is research. It might change.

    From what you have said, there still seems to an ambiguity as to whether they are criticising your intended goal i.e. what you intend this research to acheive or whether they are just criticising your methodology or whether they don't like either. It even seems a possibility to me that they just don't think it is a good fit within their department.
    Possibly =/

    They even asked me if I'd be interested if to do a different project if offered. So I don't know if that's a good sign or not =/
 
 
 

University open days

  • Southampton Solent University
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Sun, 18 Nov '18
  • University of Bradford
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    All Faculties Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.