# Applying for a MRes/PhD



## fractionMan (Mar 6, 2012)

Hey yo, I'm thinking of applying to do a 3+1 PhD this year or the next. I've finally found something that should hold my attention for three years, _complexity science, _and a particular research interest within it. I'm off to an open day tomorrow.

Anyway, I'm wondering if people would like to relate their PhD experiences, especially those who have done a research council funded 3+1. What was the application process like? Were there opportunities to teach/otherwise earn money on top of the funding? Did you have a clear idea of what you wanted to research when you started?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 6, 2012)

I had a clear idea of what I wanted to research and it worked out well.

Depending on the department/uni and funding body regulations tutorial support work for up to 6 hours a week can be on offer. I was a mature student when I did my PhD and got departmental permissions to work around 20 hours a week, 30 weeks a year in the uni library. Teaching opportunities again depends on department/uni regulations, there's not that much around these days as they can get researchers to do it for free.

Interest in the subject is paramount, it sustains you when things are crap.

Get a copy of Philips and Pugh - How to get a PhD. Check uni bookshops for second hand copies. Read it. It will save your life, your sanity and your PhD.

What is complexity science? Sounds cool


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 6, 2012)

Cheers eq.

Complexity science is the understanding of complex systems. A complex system is something made of multiple independant parts where examining a part (or all the parts) doesn't tell you how the whole will work together.

So, er, things like managing the trains I guess would be a complex system. Loads of parts, loads of different companies, routes, stations, signaling, train types etc etc all have to work together. It's applied to loads of different problems from neuroscience, biology, physics, computing, engineering etc etc. What's great about the taught MRes is it's multi-disciplinary, so I'll be working with physicists, chemists, engineers, microbiologists, all sorts 

I'm planning to look at certain aspects of artificial intelligence, well sort of.  Basically how to make multiple entities interact in an optimal way so that they all end up with an equal/balanced share of the resources.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 7, 2012)

Just on my way back from the open day and completely fired up.  This is exactly what. 
I want to do.   I'm gonna be sticking my application in asap.


----------



## smmudge (Mar 7, 2012)

Sounds ace fractionman  I want to do a phd too after I've finished my BA...so hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions too 

Like what are the chances of being able to do a phd without a masters? And are there specific times of year to apply or does it depend on the university?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 7, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Sounds ace fractionman  I want to do a phd too after I've finished my BA...so hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions too
> 
> Like what are the chances of being able to do a phd without a masters? And are there specific times of year to apply or does it depend on the university?


fractionman - nice one. If you want me to proofread anything just pm me.

smmudge - depends on subject and university, but to go straight to PhD you'll need at least a 2:1. If you have a 2.2 you'll need a masters. PhD places have become more competitive especially in the humanities.

PhDs can start at any time of the year but many start in September/October, so applications are normally before then, some as early as April depending on the funder.

Check www.jobs.ac.uk for vacancies in all subjects.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 7, 2012)

pretty much everyone at the open day I attended had firsts.  I think it's an in demand course!

p.s. cheers eq.  I recon I'll send you my personal statement for criticism some time in the next few weeks


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 8, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> pretty much everyone at the open day I attended had firsts. I think it's an in demand course!
> 
> p.s. cheers eq. I recon I'll send you my personal statement for criticism some time in the next few weeks


No problem


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 8, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Like what are the chances of being able to do a phd without a masters? And are there specific times of year to apply or does it depend on the university?


You'll be in direct competition with people who have masters degrees. Quite a few of them will've gone into their masters with a first class bachelors. 

If you're able to entirely self-fund the £60k+ that a phd (involving no lab work and minimal to no fieldwork) will cost, then depending on the uni you might have a chance. Failed / non-completed PhDs tend to count against departments wrt research council approval / funding, though. Whether or not the non-completing student is RC funded (it's overall completions they're interested in, and within 4yrs, too). So they've got an incentive to turn away people without Masters, or who might not be fully prepared for a phd. 

And, tbh, a research Masters really is about beginning to make the transition between being a student of other people's research, and being competent to conduct your own 3yr, self-directed research project.

On day 1 of my PhD, I turned up & was told "there's your desk, get on with it." Not much more, except monthly 1-hour supervisions (tailing off to 3- to 6-monthly during fieldwork & last year). I don't know many people with just a Bachelors who'd feel ok with anything approaching that...


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 8, 2012)

Btw, cambridge's grad applications' main deadline is back end of December (iirc) for international students wanting funding. I think domestic students have an extra month or 2. Self-funders can be pretty last-minute. 

And I'd gladly forward EG's much-loved & well-used copy of Phillips & Pugh (for which, many thanks, EG ), only Artichoke's just starting her PhD & she's filling it with her own notes ATM


----------



## purves grundy (Mar 8, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> If you're able to entirely self-fund the £60k+ that a phd (involving no lab work and minimal to no fieldwork) will cost


where'd you get those costs from?


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 8, 2012)

purves grundy said:


> where'd you get those costs from?


Sorry, you've got a very good point.

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/students/studentregistry/fees/costs/coursecost/costs2012.pdf

£12-16k p/a might be more realistic (given most places won't have a college fee; and maintenance might be cheaper as well).

E2a: my research stipend covered £6-7k p/a in fees; £13k p/a in stipend (tax free); and £750 p/a in research and training costs. In addition, I could access £250 p/a from my institute, & some funding from my college.

That's where I drew the figure of £60k from (my fieldwork was probably more than most people's do, but £1k p/a certainly didn't cover it all).

I'm also now in my 4th year, with no income (or fees, tbf).


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 8, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Like what are the chances of being able to do a phd without a masters? And are there specific times of year to apply or does it depend on the university?


 
You should look at courses that are what used to be called 3+1. These courses include a funded (MRes) masters component.  That said, several of the people I met applying already had a masters.

As for applying, I was told yesterday the application deadline is august the 31st, but they give out funding on a first served basis.  So earlier probably == better.

What are you thinking of studying?


----------



## mattie (Mar 8, 2012)

Bench fees for UK students are generally around the 4K to 4.5K p.a. mark, although they can reach 20k p.a. for overseas.  This forms part of the research body funding, and is in addition to your maintenance.

Maintenance grant levels seem to vary significantly, and bear in mind you'll be expected to contribute fees if you over-run the 3 year mark (although these are vastly reduced if you're in writing-up).

You really shouldn't be worrying about the funding though, that's what the academic is there for - it's a key part of their job to obtain grants for PhD students, and it's the way the system works.  Their research is conducted by a number of researchers, either salaried (research officers/associates who are generally immediately postdoc) or, most commonly, PhDs.  There are certain conditions under which you can get your own funding, but if you're an attractive enough proposition for research bodies to give you funding as an individual then you're certainly attractive enough for academics to take you on.  Research Fellows have independent funding, but it's an horrendous game to get this sort of arrangement in place - you really need to be an influential academic's 'pet' to get this, and most are postdoc.

Academics want PhD researchers who are interested and driven - some academics prefer people driven by career success, some by curiosity in the subject, it depends.  Knowing what a given academic wants is half the battle, but it's much, much easier if you have some sort of relationship (take that as literally as you like) prior to applying, especialy if you're not following the 'traditional' route into postgrad research.  You'll be creating much of their academic output against which they (and their department) will be assessed, and they want you through in a decent time as research bodies have started withholding subsequent grant money as penalty against dragged-out PhDs.  They want to know you'll work and produce.

It can be tough getting in, but once you're in - and assuming you like it - there's a clear subsequent path to follow.


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 8, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> You should look at courses that are what used to be called 3+1. These courses include a funded (MRes) masters component. That said, several of the people I met applying already had a masters.
> 
> As for applying, I was told yesterday the application deadline is august the 31st


That's probably the deadline for self-funders...

Worth looking at university websites to find out when their deadlines for various applications are. Might be worth looking at RC websites, too.

IIRC, the ESRC makes its decisions in early March. So, before then, universities need to've selected who they're going to put forward for the competition (with a fair bit of time allowed for people to turn down offers, too).

Then again... different RCs allocate funding in different ways... so it might be a good idea to get an idea of what their funding structures are, as well as how that impacts on university deadlines. For example... The ESRC used to give out Quota awards (I got one of them), a certain number of which were allocated / guaranteed to named university departments, and which were allocated _exclusively _on the university's say-so. They still needed to name who they were putting forward by early March, but it gave the dept more leeway for making their own decisions in their own time. Similarly, if a uni / dept 'owns' guaranteed RC funding (which I believe is increasingly rare / unlikely), then they have more flexibility over deadlines.

A final note. Not sure how widespread this is, but I know that my dept had serious troubles with 1+3s / 3+1s. In my MPhil year, they had 4 quotas (which could be EITHER given as +3s or 1+3s). They gave out 4 3+1s.

Two of the students who were given 1+3s decided they didn't want to continue to PhD, meaning the dept lost out (effectively) on 4 years of fees (plus all the assorted peripheral financial benefits that come with funded students). After that, there was an effective policy of avoiding 1+3s, as it only guaranteed the 1 year, rather than guaranteeing 3yrs' funding.

Not sure if that's still in place wrt my dept; but I thought it worth mentioning.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 8, 2012)

Where I'm looking the dept has EPSRC 10 studentships to give out at their discretion each year, as and when they like. A lot of the new 'doctoral training centres' are like that I think.


----------



## purves grundy (Mar 8, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Sorry, you've got a very good point.
> 
> http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/students/studentregistry/fees/costs/coursecost/costs2012.pdf
> 
> ...


Hmmm, still spenny eh. I've just applied for an April intake... I can't bear to be an impecunious student again so I'm gonna do it part-time while juggling job and whatever and running myself into the ground. At least for the first year (2 years PT); then switch to FT.

If I get accepted, of course.


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 8, 2012)

mattie said:


> You really shouldn't be worrying about the funding though, that's what the academic is there for - it's a key part of their job to obtain grants for PhD students, and it's the way the system works. Their research is conducted by a number of researchers, either salaried (research officers/associates who are generally immediately postdoc) or, most commonly, PhDs. There are certain conditions under which you can get your own funding, but if you're an attractive enough proposition for research bodies to give you funding as an individual then you're certainly attractive enough for academics to take you on.


This really is more a science / hard science model, IMU.

There are some 'teams' in social sciences / humanities. Perhaps more (again IMU) in social sciences than in humanities (my Institute has something like 3 research teams / groups). If you're funded by one of those, you'll lose almost all autonomy in deciding what you're studying / what your PhD topic is (which might be a 100% fine trade-off for PhD funding, and a PhD).

Those positions are scarcer than RC funding. Round this neck of the woods, at least, there might be one cropping up every 2yrs. Far more common (and more widely advertised) are the RC posts / individual applicants for national competitions, intent on conducting individual research.


----------



## mattie (Mar 8, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> This really is more a science / hard science model, IMU.
> 
> There are some 'teams' in social sciences / humanities. Perhaps more (again IMU) in social sciences than in humanities (my Institute has something like 3 research teams / groups). If you're funded by one of those, you'll lose almost all autonomy in deciding what you're studying / what your PhD topic is (which might be a 100% fine trade-off for PhD funding, and a PhD).
> 
> Those positions are scarcer than RC funding. Round this neck of the woods, at least, there might be one cropping up every 2yrs. Far more common (and more widely advertised) are the RC posts / individual applicants for national competitions, intent on conducting individual research.


 
I'm not sure we're quite talking about the same thing.

in general, and for most funding bodies that I'm aware, as a research body-funded PhD student, you do not hold your funding, the grant Principal Investigator does, and they _must_ be faculty.  The award is made on a combination of novelty, quality of proposed work, track record and an assessment of competence to take it through, which the academic (not the PhD candidate) is assessed against.  Under the arrangement you have with the University as a PhD student, you are allowed to assert rights to the work and expose it to the community (generally accepted to mean you can produce papers with your name on and you'll get a few conferences out of it) and you can dictate direction.  

As a salaried researcher - what I think you mean by 'team' PhD - you indeed have no ability to steer direction of research, and fees fall on your head (although at greatly reduced rate) and there is less impetus on behalf of the PI to get you through as its seen as your hobby, not your core role.

To a great extent, the University itself cares not where the funding comes from, as long as the academic is kicking out good work and they are getting their bench fee paid.


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 8, 2012)

mattie said:


> I'm not sure we're quite talking about the same thing.
> 
> in general, and for most funding bodies that I'm aware, as a research body-funded PhD student, you do not hold your funding, the grant Principal Investigator does, and they _must_ be faculty. The award is made on a combination of novelty, quality of proposed work, track record and an assessment of competence to take it through, which the academic (not the PhD candidate) is assessed against.


That doesn't sound like studentships, in my understanding of them.

My supervisors had the square root of bugger all to do with my research proposals, or the driving ideas behind them, or - tbh - much to do with the direction of my research since then.

2 (or 3) years ago, the dept was awarded a lump sum (in effect) split between x studentships - yep, based on historical completion rates and the reputation of the dept; those were then parcelled out to the dept's most favoured 3-4 applicants (based on timeliness, quality of research proposal, deliverability, etc).



> As a salaried researcher - what I think you mean by 'team' PhD - you indeed have no ability to steer direction of research, and fees fall on your head (although at greatly reduced rate) and there is less impetus on behalf of the PI to get you through as its seen as your hobby, not your core role.


No, that's not what I meant by a 'team' PhD. I'm thinking more of friends of mine in the hard sciences, who _do _have what you're calling a principal investigator; who they more commonly call their 'boss.' And whose overarching project / the larger project he's directing (or lead investigating) their subsection / component project fits into. Supervision - in my experience - is far more like line management for quite a number of my friends who've received that kinda PhD funding (channeled through a research team, led by a principal investigator).



> To a great extent, the University itself cares not where the funding comes from, as long as the academic is kicking out good work and they are getting their bench fee paid.


Right... again... a few years ago, ESRC funding (quota awards, at least) were allocated to departments rather than individual academics.

These days, IMU, departments submit a number of proposals which they consider look respectable / decent; those're now (I believe) assessed by the ESRC in a national competition for studentships / funded places.

The proposed supervisor of a given individual might play a role in determining the allocation of funding; but in my years engaged with my institute, supervisors have never been mentioned in that role, and funding and submitted / funded proposals certainly aren't 'rationed out' between supervisors on anything like a coherent basis, or tied to them in any visible, discernible, or acknowledged way.

The model of funding you seem to be describing bears far more relation to models of later-career funding (post-post-doc), IMU. Within the ESRC, at least.


----------



## mattie (Mar 8, 2012)

Ah, I see where we're crossing.

There are departmental studentships, and there are research body studentships. I'm talking about research-body studentships, departmental ones (ime) are generally divvied out to undergrads coming through and proposals can come from anyone and anywhere, and the process is generally less onorous. Most of our work came through EPSRC and ESRC, and the academic who applies holds the funding for those - they're the PIs, and each grant will dictate who can be supported, whether it be salaried research officer or PhD.

This was the model I was employed on, for both PhD and postdoc, one through EPSRC with case award (from industry) and one through a joint project with EPSRC and ESRC. 

I can't recall how full economic costing works, but essentially the grant will specify if it's postdoc or PhD as you have to say what the costs associated with each will be as this is what you'll claim. These research body grants are obviously more attractive for career-minded academics, as they are assessed in part by how much funding they win - a departmental PhD doesn't generally count towards that.

Sadly, most supervisors have bugger-all to do with a PhD once it's up and running. They've got their funding on the CV, you're writing papers and a thesis which will have their name on.


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 8, 2012)

To clarify that, the three 'advertised' / stated criteria on which PhD applicants were assessed (4yrs ago) was:

i) academic / professional background of the applicant;
ii) quality of their research proposal (timeliness, feasibility, etc);
iii) availability of appropriate supervision.

Those are, afaik, still the three criteria identified to applicants for the PhD programme, and are (backroom negotiations and shufflings aside) the basis on which candidates are chosen to be put forward for studentship / RC funding competitions.

It's _presented _as premised on fundamentally individual criteria (about the applicant), within a departmental context (my dept receives more funding because of its size / reputation / proportion of completions / etc). The role of a supervisor / 'principal investigator' academic (apart from their availability / existence within the dept) is not - in that context - named or identified at all.


----------



## mattie (Mar 8, 2012)

For departmental PhDs, that will probably be the case - the funding is already 'won', for most part via REF scoring.

For research body funded PhDs, the academic who holds the grant basically calls the shots. I arranged my PhD over a beer with my undergrad design supervisor, and he went through the admin process with EPSRC - to win funding - whilst I was in Australia and chased up leads he had with an engineering company to get sponsorship (vital for 'real' data in the work we were doing). There was no department assessment or input into the process, although they presumably knew who I was.

My understanding was the latter approach was the most common - perhaps as the academic gets money and sole dibs in the outcomes (academics are notoriously territorial and greedy, despite the whole philosophy of the profession).  I could stand corrected on that, especially in other fields where cash may be tighter - we always had the luxury of a 'product' to sell to industry, which took a lot of pressure off.


----------



## smmudge (Mar 8, 2012)

This stuff is always so confusing  I think at the moment I'm just going to worry about finishing off my BA then go back to work for a year to give me time to get my head around it all! I guess a masters is probably a good idea though I'm happy to do a research masters rather than a taught masters, especially since I want to shift focus/departments slightly, and to give me some ideas for a good thesis, plus some contacts/recommendations. What's the chances of getting funding for a masters in humanities, and what can I do to increase those chances?


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 8, 2012)

smmudge said:


> This stuff is always so confusing  I think at the moment I'm just going to worry about finishing off my BA then go back to work for a year to give me time to get my head around it all! I guess a masters is probably a good idea though I'm happy to do a research masters rather than a taught masters, especially since I want to shift focus/departments slightly, and to give me some ideas for a good thesis, plus some contacts/recommendations. What's the chances of getting funding for a masters in humanities, and what can I do to increase those chances?


 
Just a side note but all the MRes course I've look at have been, well, taught masters under a different name.  The one I'm looking at contains very little in the way of teaching research skills.  It focusses mainly on maths & modelling skills.


----------



## smmudge (Mar 8, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Just a side note but all the MRes course I've look at have been, well, taught masters under a different name. The one I'm looking at contains very little in the way of teaching research skills. It focusses mainly on maths & modelling skills.


 
Oh yeah, stats and stuff? I've been trying so very hard to avoid that so far....although I guess if I want to be a researcher it's a good idea to learn it. I'm alright at maths but I didn't much like stats!


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 8, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Anyway, I'm wondering if people would like to relate their PhD experiences, especially those who have done a research council funded 3+1. What was the application process like? Were there opportunities to teach/otherwise earn money on top of the funding? Did you have a clear idea of what you wanted to research when you started?


 
I started my PhD (in History) ten years ago, and things have changed quite a bit since then. The 3+1 scheme was only just being introduced, and I wasn't on it: I borrowed the money to fund my MA, and wouldn't have gone on to do a PhD had I not got an ESRC scholarship. That was of course for stand-alone PhD funding.  The application form was a complex, 24-page beast of a thing, and I doubt it's any easier now.

I was fortunate to be in Hull, where living costs were (and are) very low, so I could afford my own small flat on the living grant and didn't have to carry on living in shared accommodation. However, it was pretty tight. From early 2002 I supplemented my income with ten hours a week in the student union bar, which was a great help to my finances and also a good laugh. It kept me in touch with the main student population - which is good, because doing a PhD can be quite isolating - and I made some great friends through it, among them our own Dovydaitis. The bar took me on full-time when my funding ran out, but tbh I wouldn't recommend trying to write up a PhD and be a full-time barman. I reckon my average working week for those few months was of the order of 75-80 hours. Things became a bit easier when my supervisor secured some research funding, and | was appointed (although after going through a full interview etc) research assistant for a few months. After that finished I had a couple of months on the dole before submitting my thesis.

From my second year as a PhD student I also did a bit of teaching - leading undergrad seminars and adult ed courses - which was great experience and paid more for an hour than I earned in an evening pulling pints, although the preparation time needed meant that the hourly rate worked out at minimum wage or below.

I did have a clear idea of what I wanted to do when I started. Had I not put forward a very detailed proposal and schedule of work with my application I'd never have got the funding. However, nine months in I realised that what I was trying to do was not really doable, and with my supervisor's agreement I slimmed it down dramatically, after which I got on a lot better. The moral of the story, I think, is that in humanities at least, you do need to be a bit flexible.

I have to disagree with this, at least in the humanities:




mattie said:


> Sadly, most supervisors have bugger-all to do with a PhD once it's up and running. They've got their funding on the CV, you're writing papers and a thesis which will have their name on.


 
That might have been true a couple of decades ago now, but it is no longer the case. Universities are assessed on completion rates for PhDs now, and one by-product of that has been far more intensive supervision of PhDs than was the case even when I started. Nowadays there are guidelines for how much contact time PhD students should have, how much research training they should undergo, and so on.

That said, the supervisor's attitude does make some difference. I was very lucky, in that I had a supervisor whom I respect greatly as a scholar and like as an individual. I was happy to seek out his advice, and he was very willing to give it, often over a pint. Some of my contemporaries had to work rather harder to maintain contact. But again, that was ten years ago and now there's more pressure on the supervisor to take an interest. Another thing my supervisor did was push me very hard to get some teaching experience, get work published and get out there on the conference circuit. I'm grateful for that, because although it did slow down my PhD, it did mean I had other things on my CV when I started applying for jobs.

Unfortunately, one result of the increased regulation of PhDs - and much less flexible deadlines are a part of that - is that students have less time to undertake tasks that are not directly relevant to the thesis, but are an essential part of the training for an academic career. Another is that the amateur enthusiast who does a PhD over a long period of time just out of interest has been largely squeezed out, which is a great shame.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 8, 2012)

smmudge said:


> Oh yeah, stats and stuff? I've been trying so very hard to avoid that so far....although I guess if I want to be a researcher it's a good idea to learn it. I'm alright at maths but I didn't much like stats!


 

Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear.  The maths is all related to the PhD area, complexity science.


----------



## smmudge (Mar 8, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear. The maths is all related to the PhD area, complexity science.


 
Ah I see!


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 8, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Btw, cambridge's grad applications' main deadline is back end of December (iirc) for international students wanting funding. I think domestic students have an extra month or 2. Self-funders can be pretty last-minute.
> 
> And I'd gladly forward EG's much-loved & well-used copy of Phillips & Pugh (for which, many thanks, EG ), only Artichoke's just starting her PhD & she's filling it with her own notes ATM


I'm happy it's going to a good home - told you it was invaluable 

That book saved my sanity on more than one occasion.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 8, 2012)

It's also not a guaranteed career pathway these days, in the way that it was 20 years ago.

In some disciplines, especially the sciences and engineering where PhD places have increased but post-doc funding has been cut, the competition for a full-time permanent lectureship has become very intense. Candidates are expected to have extensive experience in research, including obtaining funding, teaching, supervising PhDs and 2-3 post-doc positions (ones outside the UK seem to be seen more favourably). I know people with all of that who still haven't got lectureships. so, if you want an academic career path, be prepared for 10 years of short-term contracts with no guarantees.

That said, I do not regret the choice I made not to go into academia. I realised early on it was not for me - I do not have the temprement to deal with many aspects of the job. It was tough, I did 60-70 hour weeks for 4 years, and was exhausted at the end of it, but I don't regret any of it as I knew beyond doubt it was what I wanted to do. You absolutely need that desire to keep you going.


----------



## ymu (Mar 8, 2012)

I didn't apply through this route but it was much the same sort of deal, I expect. I've never really understood academia despite having worked in it much of my life, but a couple of practical tips:

The interview panel will consist of a variety of people who know something about your area, but most of them won't have a detailed understanding. Making it easy for anyone to understand what you're going on about and why it matters is really useful. You can nail this in the introductory/concluding bits of the application, but rehearse explaining it in person to people of various degrees of technical knowledge. Some of them will be tasked with more technical questioning, some with more practical/general stuff, so be prepared to switch gears and answer questions in language that the questioner wants to hear/can understand.

People on these panels sometimes get really snobby about qualifications, which is crazy when people have been in work for a number of years. Be prepared to defend any holes in your academic record. I got asked how I expected to be able to teach this stuff when I was taught it at an ex-poly . I dealt with that by pointing out that I did my masters part-time whilst working full-time and there wasn't a whole lot of choice of courses where that was possible, that I was working in the field when I was studying so I was well aware at the time of the deficiencies in my course compared to the 'state of the art', and that professional qualification requires years working in an area regardless of what bits of paper you have to your name. This went down well. There's no need to get defensive about anything that marks you out as different from the typical candidate - these sorts of questions are where you can get your strengths across, and what makes them remember you later on.

Once you've started, know when to stop developing the idea and when to start executing it. There's no such thing as a topic that couldn't have been done better if you'd known at the beginning what you knew at the end, but the purpose of this is not to produce your life's crowning achievement, it's just laying the formal foundations you need for a future career in research. Good enough is more than fine, just get it done, before the money runs out.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 8, 2012)

Oh yeah, I'm looking forward to them gufawing at my OU degree.


----------



## ymu (Mar 9, 2012)

Then prepare to talk about how, in many ways, an OU degree prepares you well for a PhD. Self-directed study, limited contact with supervisors, the temptation to drag it all out for another year ...

OU degrees are very well respected, IME. Just prepare to defend your ground. I'd much rather have a student with an OU degree than one who went to university as an extension of school, tbh.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 9, 2012)

There's something Marmitey about ou degrees.  People tend to either respect or dismiss them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2012)

The one issue i've observed with ou degrees is that there is scant opportunity for learning about practice based library research, certainly in the arts and humanities they don't seem to expect the sort of research an undergraduate at a day university would do


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 9, 2012)

That's true.  My undergraduate degree contained zero research or research skills.  Hopefully I'll be able to demonstrate them through my work rather than my academic record.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 9, 2012)

The next step is writing my personal statement. Does Philips and Pugh - How to get a PhD contain advice on this?

I'm not really sure where to start tbh.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 9, 2012)

I'm currently reading an excerpt, how not to get a PhD:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/nov/08/highereducation.books


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 9, 2012)

Bristol university website has zero guidelines on writing personal statements. I'm looking at the Bath guidelines instead: http://www.bath.ac.uk/careers/postgradstudy/statements.html


A clear understanding of why you are making the application.
An insight into your overall abilities in the context of how well they will fit with the demands of the course.
How your academic background and work experience will contribute to your ability to make the most out of the course that you have applied for.
Continuity of the progression from what you have done in the past, will be doing on the course and how it will contribute to your career goals in the future.
Evidence of your communication skills, an indicator of how well you are likely to perform on course assessments and course requirements in general (e.g. presentations, group work, written reports).
Commitment and enthusiasm – This is usually revealed by the way in which you write about the reasons that you have selected the course. It is not good enough just to say that you are committed and motivated it needs to be very clear why this is the case.
Sounds reasonable.  Length I'm not so sure of.  A page of A4 seems appropriate.


----------



## ymu (Mar 9, 2012)

As long as it takes to make the points you want to make whilst covering those bases. Keep it concise, but make sure you address any potential weaknesses and explain why they're not really weaknesses. ie you could explain that the OU degree gave you limited library research experience but that you've done x,y,z in your job to make up for that and the other advantages of it are ...

Make the topic your own. Explain why it matters and why you're in a  better position than most to address it (link it to your work experience and future plans). They're generally looking to fund people who plan to stay in research rather than the research topic itself, so you need to be clear on why they should be investing in you. Avoid crappy management-speak though. Make every point meaningful beyond trivial generalities. Treat it more like the story of how you got to this point than a checklist of things you must cover.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 9, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> The next step is writing my personal statement. Does Philips and Pugh - How to get a PhD contain advice on this?
> 
> I'm not really sure where to start tbh.


Here's the link to the contents pages:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-get-PhD...=UTF8&qid=1331316351&sr=8-1#reader_0335242022


----------



## mattie (Mar 9, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> It's also not a guaranteed career pathway these days, in the way that it was 20 years ago.
> 
> In some disciplines, especially the sciences and engineering where PhD places have increased but post-doc funding has been cut, the competition for a full-time permanent lectureship has become very intense. Candidates are expected to have extensive experience in research, including obtaining funding, teaching, supervising PhDs and 2-3 post-doc positions (ones outside the UK seem to be seen more favourably). I know people with all of that who still haven't got lectureships. so, if you want an academic career path, be prepared for 10 years of short-term contracts with no guarantees.
> 
> That said, I do not regret the choice I made not to go into academia. I realised early on it was not for me - I do not have the temprement to deal with many aspects of the job. It was tough, I did 60-70 hour weeks for 4 years, and was exhausted at the end of it, but I don't regret any of it as I knew beyond doubt it was what I wanted to do. You absolutely need that desire to keep you going.


 
These mirror my sentiments almost exactly - and I know too many good academics who never captured a lectureship because they lost out to the gameplayers, the ones who publish flawed research and duplicate publications to get an impressive CV.  The 'publish or perish' mentality has become worse and worse in recent years, principally as pressures have become stronger and stronger.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 9, 2012)

mattie said:


> These mirror my sentiments almost exactly - and I know too many good academics who never captured a lectureship because they lost out to the gameplayers, the ones who publish flawed research and duplicate publications to get an impressive CV. The 'publish or perish' mentality has become worse and worse in recent years, principally as pressures have become stronger and stronger.


I was never going to be a gameplayer 

There's also the pressure on academics to commercialise their research - even the research councils have been applying pressure by encouraging more commercially-biased grants.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 9, 2012)

Fractionman - have you got hold of any publications from academics in the uni you're applying to? If you find a topic that interests you, it might help at the interview stage as you'll have something to talk about.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 9, 2012)

That's a really good idea.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 2, 2012)

Hmm.  I've let this slide a bit.

I think it's a confidence thing as much as anything else.  I've been reading up on the maths and a lot of it is currently way beyond me.  

I'm going to get in touch and ask them if I can apply for next year and if it's worthwhile doing so.  I'm making this post is to kick myself up the arse.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 3, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Hmm. I've let this slide a bit.
> 
> I think it's a confidence thing as much as anything else. I've been reading up on the maths and a lot of it is currently way beyond me.
> 
> I'm going to get in touch and ask them if I can apply for next year and if it's worthwhile doing so. I'm making this post is to kick myself up the arse.


Don't worry about the maths - remember a PhD is about learning as well as research. I was accepted to a maths Phd with an engineering background and couldn't do loads of the maths before I started it. You learn as you go along.

Don't you want to apply this year any more?


----------



## Mapped (Apr 3, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Hmm. I've let this slide a bit.
> 
> I think it's a confidence thing as much as anything else. I've been reading up on the maths and a lot of it is currently way beyond me.


 
You can learn that stuff as you go along. I'm often feel out of my depth with the stats part of my Msc, but managed to get decent marks in my exam and assignment.

I'm thinking of applying for a PhD for next year. I've been enjoying my masters and I work in a place that encourages people to carry out research and I've a few ideas of what I'd like to do. I'm looking at going through a doctoral training centre so the application will need to be in by January. It'll have to be part time though as I've taken on a mortgage and can't afford to pay that on an ESRC grant. I'm going to get to know the institution I'm thinking of applying to quite well before then as 6 months of my time from the summer will be working on a fairly big project with them, so hopefully that'll help me make my mind up.

The only thing that's concerning me is the part-time aspect. It'll be 5 years, which is a hell of a long time which a lot can happen in.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 20, 2012)

Going for it.  Writing personal statement now.

Just read back my first draft and cringed.  It sounds awful


----------



## purves grundy (Apr 20, 2012)

I've applied, been accepted, and meet my tutor on Monday! Am gonna go PT for the first 'year' (which means the first year is two years long) then I might go FT for the final two. Typical that just as I get my arse in gear to do this, my job shifts up a gear or two and Burma goes from a sleepy dictatorial backwater to a hive of activity. Bloody liberals!


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 20, 2012)

purves grundy said:


> I've applied, been accepted, and meet my tutor on Monday! Am gonna go PT for the first 'year' (which means the first year is two years long) then I might go FT for the final two. Typical that just as I get my arse in gear to do this, my job shifts up a gear or two and Burma goes from a sleepy dictatorial backwater to a hive of activity. Bloody liberals!


 
Congrats!


----------



## purves grundy (Apr 20, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Congrats!


Thanks! Let's see how it goes *gulp*


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 20, 2012)

Bloody hell this is hard!  I've written a first draft, sent the intro to a friend and while he's not exactly shredded it but come back with a bunch of good points I need to address.  That's just the intro too


----------

