One of the biggest inequities in higher education I have found is the sheer variability in debt. While some people can clock up tens of thousands of pounds in debt, others seem to go through their entire university career and come out with a profit!

My friend, S, is a great example of this, who didn't pay tuition fees as an undergraduate, infact got a grant (this was back in 1997). He then got a full studentship for his PhD (about 12k at the time), then after that went onto do his clinical doctorate which he is now doing(which pays him 23k a year). Needless to say, I sponge off him like crazy (mainly use his computer to write on here).

We worked out that he has been at university for 10 years and calculated that if he had to pay for his full education it would have cost him 50k in tuition fees alone (probably double if you include living expenses on top of that). He sounded quite shocked when he heard, as he never really thought about it before that.

Just to note, that your feeling about "not being used at your full potential" is quite common. Most people dont do their best work at the PhD stage (including Einstein, Hawking etc). As a PhD student you are still fairly low in the chain of command, and most supervisors don't want to do the equivalent of "letting junior have the keys to the Porsche". As a result there is a lot of low level grunt work for most of us until you are few years into your post doc.

A think its worth breaking down what "Average PhD student" means to you. On one hand, PhD students are supposed to be some of the best graduates out there, so you could see it in the same light as "Average SAS soldier" or "Average Topgun Pilot", which doesnt look so bad.

I suspect your reaction may be symptomatic of something deeper though, a desire to be seen and recognised as "the best" in some way. If this is the case I think you should explore this, as its a fairly surefire way quick route towards guilt, misery and burnout.

Remember, most PhD students (50% if you use a bell curve) will be average. 25% will be below average and 25% above. At least you are not in the bottom quartile.

Many of those "eminent profs" you mention had very different lives from us.

They obtained their PhDs in a period where only 5% of people went to university, and in an era where you were fully funded and given academic freedom to study whatever the hell you wanted. Because of this they had job security, enough latitude to allow them to perform long term research (which made them eminent), and didnt have to put up with most of the stuff we do.

The traditional academic life, with long summers, sabaticals and inability to get fired, IS a life that is particularly good for families and relationships.

Modern academic life, however, isnt.

I think its also important to ascertain the situation of the job market and the prospects of someone with a PhD in History. It may be that there is a line of work that is both stimulating and lucrative.

If, like in my field, it is not so you could find yourself either working in non-secure adjunct work for a long time, or ending up competing with all the fresh graduates for whatever job you need to survive. My advice is that you make sure you know what is the likely outcome of your PhD before sinking any more time, money and emotional resources into it. Be warned, Is it worth doing all of that to end up temping just like me?

What this is indicative of incompatible values. On one hand he has the right to be with someone that fits in with his values (maybe partner being around at home, not working), just as much as you have with your values (being academically oriented, independent etc). If this is the case id does not bode well for your long term relationship, and may explain why you have been having such difficulties already.

I think you both need to have a long talk about how you both see the future, and see if your account and his account fits. then see how realistic each is. You may say "Well I will have a family, be a full time professor, and have time to have intersts outside" and that could theoretically please everyone, but may not be easily achievable.

It is still tough though.

Actually I can see that there are two issues here.

1) Conflicts within the discrete time period it takes to do your PhD. Your bf may be unhappy that it takes so much of your time, effort, etc. However, it is reasonable to ask him to give you a little bit of space for that limited period of time. This is a fairly acceptable request, and lots of couples have to have an undesirable "separation" (either for work, family commitments or things beyond their control like military service). Put it in perspective, its not forever, and talk about how after this is done you can both do "something for him".

2) The issue about you being an academic. Like it or not, some people do not like to have a)partners that are career minded, rather than say family oriented, and/or b) partners that work in jobs that are uncertain/ require them to move around a lot, etc.

I found my PhD a big strain on my relationship, and the post-graduation time more or less killed it. As my ex was doing a taught doctorate, hers was more structured and guided and she failed to appreciate how difficult it is to do straight research (I dont think many people grasp it either, and underestimate it) and this was a huge flashpoint for us.

Overall I get the impression that academic life in the 21st century is not condusive towards good relationships for many. It requires lots of time, intense focus and dedication. It also requires you to move around for work, live on temporary contracts, be underpaid and have uncertain future prospects (none of which are particularly attractive to most people).

As for your case, if your external has agreed your thesis IS PhD quality (not fail/ MPhil level) then they have to abide by the corrections they give you. The corrections are binding to them as well as you, so they cannot turn around and give you any problems, as long as you carry out what they ask.

Its unpleasant, but probably not as unpleasant as my mate who was told "Your PhD research is commendable, and you did well in your viva but your spelling mistakes and typing errors are atrocious, and I am tempted to fail you on that alone". He still gets embarassed about that.

I think "corrections" are underreported. They certainly are not a fail. Almost everyone gets them, but as soon as people are done with them they tend to forget this stage.

In fact, after my viva I was told that I had some minor corrections (mainly updating some of the research in the literature review that had come out while I was writing, so wasn't included). However, under the terms of minor corrections they would give me only 30 days to do it. I felt like crying as I REALLY needed some time off (my nightmare with my supervisor nearly drove me to breakdown, and I didnt want to see him for a while). I explained this and they said they could give me a full rundown on the corrections they wanted and they would tick the major correction box so I could have a little more time (6 months rather than 30 days). I opted for this and after a month off, I came back did my corrections and re-submitted 2.5 months after my viva. It was fine.

The point about American PhD scholars publishing more papers may be attributable to the fact that our PhD's are supposed to be 3 years in duration and theirs are over 5 years, which gives you more time to publish. Also there are probably more American journals that are considered international standard to publish within, which gives them a slight edge.

I wouldn't put it down to greater intelligence or ability.

Just one point. I notice that when people bemoan the fact that there are too many graduates, and that many are not of sufficient calibre, they usually position themselves to be in the percentage that "should rightfully be there".

My current ongoing thought is "What if we belong that percentage that shouldn't..."

I really thought it was just me being crap (not being able to find a scientific job), but really if people at the postdoc level are applying for £17-19k jobs, I may as well have just worked in McDonalds at 16- I would have made area manager by now! This kind of report is just worrying.

Some argue a degree provides a training for life, rather than a passport to a chosen profession. The government, in justifying tuition fees and student loans, instead suggests it represents a financial investment for the future. It seems to me that the government is perpetuating a cruel deception upon our young people, which involves a huge misapplication of government (ie our) money. Higher education may artificially keep the unemployment figures down at the students' expense. However, it wastes the time and money, and destroys the dreams, of so many of our young people, most of whom should have never have gone to university in the first place.
Professor Philip Brookes
Luton, Bedfordshire

Guardian 15.08.07

One repeatedly reads of the government's aim to educate up to 50% of our youth to university level (Brown's bonanza, August 14). I lead a scientific research group. Recently I advertised for a scientific assistant; minimum academic requirement two A-levels and salary range £17-19,000pa. Out of 37 applications, one was from a postdoctoral scientist, seven others had a PhD, seven an MSc and 22 had a BSc, including first and 2.1 degrees. Clearly, science graduates are being produced in conveyor-belt quantities, while there are simply too few appropriate opportunities for them.