I was a very part-time student, lucky to manage 5 hours total a week in the last few years of my 6-year part-time PhD.

I managed the final revisions and proper writing of my conclusions chapter in the last 4 months. So you can do it too!

I used Word and had separate files for all my chapters until near the end. It just took an hour or two to reformat everything into a single file. It really isn't that big a task. I'd be wary of switching to a different typesetting system at such a late stage of your PhD.

Also when you write your final chapter the best advice my supervisor gave me was to think "so what?" i.e. what have I found. So there was a bit of recapping, but mainly I was pulling out the big results, and thinking about big questions which ran across all my previous thematic chapters.

Good luck!

So sorry to hear about your Dad's passing Sue. But huge kudos to you for getting to this stage with your thesis. Hey it's nearly finished! I'd have loved to stay up and celebrate with you, but I'm very knocked out due to the neurological disease, so can't promise to make any time. But you have a big celebration when you've submitted. You've earned it.

0.00?

Different universities have different ways of managing things. It's likely that Renaissance Studies is the over-arching subject you'd be in, but you'd have a more specific research topic you'd be working on yourself.

My degree was registered (at Registry) as a PhD in history, but I was researching a specific topic within that field.

Also there can be a difference if you apply to an already-defined PhD, perhaps as part of a larger research project academics are working on already. There the topic might already be defined. But more commonly in humanities you'd be coming up with your own topic.

======= Date Modified 22 Oct 2010 10:54:02 =======
An MPhil is a lower level research degree. So not as long a thesis. Not as advanced as a PhD.

PhD and DPhil are pretty interchangeable. Oxford give out DPhils not PhDs for example.

I'm afraid there's no guarantees we can give you, unless you're already on a 1+3 Masters+PhD option (funded) which you're not. You have to see where things will lead. But if you do finish the Masters it will open up opportunities for you. Hopefully a PhD, and certainly other things. For example you could do a PGCE/PGDE in education to allow you to teach or lecture, including in colleges or universities. Not all lecturers have PhDs.

If you do want to go onto a PhD you should seek advice quite early on in your Masters course from staff at your university about funding options and what projects would interest you. This doesn't commit you to staying at that university, but gives you lots of tips on how best to apply. It also gives you time to start honing your research proposal, which you'll need if you want to apply to AHRC.

Good luck!

======= Date Modified 22 Oct 2010 10:14:02 =======
I spent very little extra on books and conferences definitely weren't essential in my history PhD. I went to one, but even that wasn't required. I won a travel award from the conference organisers to pay for my 2-week trip to Canada. My department also gave me a travel grant.

But I did spend a lot on copies of archival material, so photocopies, microfilms, etc. But still not that much.

And because I was part-time I didn't have to consider living expenses as well. Thankfully. The tuition fees were the main cost, which luckily AHRC took care of after the initial year.

And AHRC now pay a stipend (maintenance grant) to part-timers as well. That change in rules (levelling the board between full-timers and part-timers) was introduced near the end of my PhD. Because my husband works I didn't need this, but used it towards other expenses. Other part-time history students who have to work less than a full-time week to fit in their PhD would definitely have benefited greatly from the new maintenance award available.

======= Date Modified 22 Oct 2010 09:37:57 =======
For English you'd be looking at funding from AHRC - the Arts and Humanities Research Council. I applied to them for funding my part-time PhD. Back then (2004) only about 20% of applicants won funding. Humanities PhD funding is very scarce and incredibly competitive. Only the very best applicants and research projects get funding. You should aim to do well in your MA. I had a distinction in my Masters, which made up for my having a 2-1 in my BA, but I also had relevant Research Assistant to boost my application.

There are other funding options at university, such as internal awards, or (rarely) outside bodies, like Carnegie scholarships where I am (Scotland - they are only open to Scots). But these are rare too. Humanities PhD funding is much scarcer than science PhD funding. It's why many humanities students self-fund.

The cost of a PhD varies by university. At my university it's 3400 pounds per year for full-time home students. Part-timers pay a pro-rata rate. I was self-funded in my first year, but applied to AHRC during that year, and won funding for the rest of my 6-year PhD.

Sometime after his PhD my hubby put his CV into monster.co.uk and they found him quite a few jobs. In the end he didn't take any of them, because he found an even better (unadvertised) one locally. But they did a pretty good job, much better than the job centre would do.

======= Date Modified 21 Oct 2010 18:45:28 =======
Oops wrong thread sorry! (ignore this message - one below is fine)

Yes I'd email too. I'm also surprised you don't know about your external. This had to be set up in my intention to submit form, which was handed in 6 weeks before I submitted (should have been 3 months, but hey). There was a delay in my department figuring out an internal examiner after submission: initially they appointed one person, then changed to another. So I didn't know who that would be for quite a while after submission. But at least I knew who the external was.

Do you need to give an actual timeline? I set my research out in phases as well. One followed on from the previous one and so on. But I didn't pin down how long anything would take. I couldn't do that at such an early stage. PhD research is very unpredictable.

Sorry I didn't make it clearer. I was referring to the original poster's timeline. Year 3 writing up is more normal. Actually Year 4 as well :)

That time line looks a bit unrealistic to me.

The first year is more likely to be literature survey and starting to do research, generally feeling your way.

Most of the research would be done in the second year.

If you're very lucky you'll be able to concentrate on writing up in the third year, but you might still be finishing research.

When I applied to AHRC back in 2004 I just gave a very rough outline of what would be done i.e.

"The research will start with a ..., surveying developments in .... This will provide the basis for a detailed study of sources for .... Throughout there will be an emphasis on sources directly linking .... The final phase will review the ... results, including comparing them with results from other countries."

Wooh! Well done :-x