Skip to main content

turning back to square 1


Recently, I have started applying to graduate schools for a PhD. I have received one rejection letter already. It was written in a very ,say, measured (if that is the right word) way such that it only pulls you by a thin thread from falling off into a deep cliff of depression. It was a really nice and kind gesture. Others had specified that they will get back if they would like to interview me. Fair enough. But for me, this experience marks the beginning of the second most faced situations in the life of researchers-getting rejected. From journals, editors, publishers etc etc. (concentrated optimism dripping all over, I know)The first one is, in my honest opinion, is the developing a habit of contesting an idea.

 I had joined The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, in 2016 for a PhD program and did a Molecular Dynamics simulation project. This is more of physics than what I had imagined. The techniques and training people need to do this kind of job is very different from what I have done in Master's thesis (protein purification and crystallization).

 Now, just like many other places in India, the process involves one year of coursework followed by a project which may or may not result in a PhD thesis. But here they don't have a process of lab rotation which I think most of the biology institutes have(and must have). Turns out that my project is not going to result in a thesis for a number of reasons and I have to look for other opportunities. This time I am going to stick with Biology. It is annoying when you have to go around to find out something that lay next to you :/

 So, anyway, the purpose of writing this is to put what I am thinking at 2 AM everyday into words. Everyone knows what are the rational choices at this point in the career are. It is the stressful time that passes very slowly. As far as the question of the research institutes, labs to  apply to is concerned, I believe that even if we start from small facilities, it takes time and effort to build up and grow. Of course, people who take off from better places get better opportunities down the line but that cannot belittle the effort that scientists in smaller towns make and contribute to science. I think more public engagement can solve these issues. India is doing much better in this generation than the previous one in this regard.

Comments

  1. Unknown26 November 2018 at 18:08

    So did you get a chance to start your research this year ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deepika6 September 2019 at 03:59

      Hey Ashwin! Sorry for replying so late. I started as a Project student at RCB, Faridabad few months back.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Separating Science From the Scientist

In October 2016, Ditchling Museum of Art + Craft organized an exhibition to discuss a famous sculptor of 20th century, Eric Gill. The theme of the exhibition was to discuss Gill's art from a fresh perspective of that of an abuser. Later next year, Kevin Spacey was written off House of Cards where he played the lead role following sexual harassment charges. These, among many others, are attempts of art industry to address some uncomfortable questions -  should art of an abuser be appreciated? or rather,  can art be separated from the artist? On this issue, Ed Siegel compared artists to scientists suggesting that it is crucial to evaluate art separate from the artist just as science is evaluated separate from scientists. This is an interesting observation. It implies that the work matters more than the individual. It also implies that with one or more good results, everything uncomfortable about you, all of your personal or professional misdemeanors, can be brushed under the ca...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is Science a meritocracy?

Update -Finally publishing the draft from dec 2019    Somebody on twitter found it absurd to call science a meritocracy. I would agree to it in the past but now I am not sure.  My prime focus is on marks. It never bothered me until I met two researchers from Max Planck institute in a symposium. Apparently, the grades are taken very seriously in Europe for PhD admission. Just like in India.That is ridiculous on two levels. One, the message it sends out- ONLY high scoring students can, and should be privileged to, make a career in science. Second, the assumption that those students will be good at doing science. Because unlike PhD admission, these may not be followed up with an interview and only based on merit the batch of students is prepared. And the majority, the <85% scoring population, has to look out for other means to show how competent they are. And that is really really worrisome for anyone who wants to increase the engagement of society in STEM o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why so complacent in the high drop out rate?

I had an interview recently at a renowned lab here in India. I admired her work and simply couldn't wait to talk to the PI, tour the lab and telling her that I am a big fan. After the interview, the PI told me about how they are little frugal about lab supplies (and the practice apparently served them well), the 11-12 hour commitment to the lab and their high drop-out rate. All of this was to signify how science-y they are probably. However, I found these practices very uncomfortable. Especially her complacency about the drop-out rate. Indian scientists seem to find a merit in the high drop-out rate from their lab. It is like a badge of honor. Why do you have to assume the reason for them leaving is because you are demanding and/or the student is incompetent? That is stupid. There are numerous reasons a student can quit working with someone. It doesn't necessarily have to be something wrong about the student!  Why do you have to showcase it like a crown? It ...
Post a Comment
Read more