Yes, as Acarpous says, it refers to undergraduate (Bachelors) qualifications. So you will need to translate your grades into the UK equivalent. I would interpret 'Good 2.1' to mean "65% or higher". Essentially they are trying to rule out people who got a 2.1 but were close to the 2.2. boarder.

If you tell us what FGD stands for we may be able to help.

It sounds like he is either being lazy, is just far too busy, or doesn't really understand the process (it may have been a long time since he was having to apply for jobs!)

Does he have a PA/administrator? If so, get your boss to give the recommendation letter to him/her to send out on his behalf as and when it is required.

Alternatively, it is sometimes possible to specify that referees should not be contacted unless a job offer is made. Sometimes people do this to hide the fact they are job hunting, and sometimes they do this to avoid causing repeated hassle to their referees. This might be worth doing.

In the UK at least, there isn't really a culture of 'internships' in research. You may instead come across the following:
- funded short projects e.g. Wellcome Trust (used to) fund summer projects for the gap between second and third year undergraduate.
- work experience/work shadowing - you would usually have to initiate these yourself by making contact with an appropriate and willing researcher.
- short fixed term contract research jobs.

I cannot comment on the situation in other countries.

It all sounds promising for you. But rather than waste energy on worrying, are you doing anything to actively prepare for the viva?

As others have said, if you want to obtain an MPhil, you would have to go through that formal process.

Another consideration is that, given that you have already passed the upgrade from MPhil to PhD point, you might not actually be eligible to be granted an MPhil any more. You should check your uni/faculty policy on this before giving it any further thought.

I'm afraid I don't think you have a very strong case to make. I would avoid making further complaints about this as you could antagonise him or the course organiser. Unless there is actual evidence that he is systematically undermarking people, it's a very vulnerable position to be accusing someone of not giving adequate credit when they are the teacher and you are the student.

If you have also been assigned a personal tutor for your course, make good use of them. Get them to help you plan your work and keep on track, and check your outputs for quality (if they are allowed to do that). Familiarise yourself with the dissertation mark scheme and all the requirements and make sure your work meets all these criteria. Ask to see examples of past dissertations that have scored well and make sure yours is of a similar standard.

One thing - don't assume that just because he wasn't available during the course that he won't give adequate supervision. Academics have many other demands on their time and he might be more available for one to one support when he just has a few students to deal with rather than a class full. I suggest that you have a conversation with him upfront about how often you will 'meet', be that in person, via email or over Skype. Get this agreement written via email so you have documentary evidence in case he doesn't fulfil this arrangement.

If you do a piece of work that is clearly merit or distinction level then it is unlikely that you will score below this, and if you do get a lower grade there may be grounds for appeal. So do your very best work and hopefully this will turn out well for you.

What field are you in (broadly)? There are cultural differences in PhD management and research practice in different fields. For example, in sciences it is rare for junior researchers to be sole author on a paper - the PI's name will almost always be there. In the arts and humanities this is less common.

Sometimes research is necessarily iterative. I work with external collaborators and they've just signed off on something that's taken about a year of me doing something, getting feedback from them, changing it, getting more feedback, changing it etc.... It's been a frustrating but (to some extent) necessary process. Sometimes having to 're-do' things is unavoidable, but not always. But if you let us know your field we may be better able to advise as to what is 'normal'.

Do you have a secondary supervisor and/or postgraduate tutor also involved in this process?

Check your uni policy but dissertations are usually double marked, therefore your work will be reviewed by someone else as well. There will also be a mark scheme.

When you say he was 'never helpful' do you think that this behaviour will continue when he is a supervisor? Is there a co-supervisor for the project?

Do you think you are capable of producing work that is up to 'Merit' level?

Congratulations on submitting! That is a very big deal, and you should probably be giving yourself a rest right now.

It sounds from your post like you are perceiving there to be a lot more failures going on than one might consider more objectively. For example, the fact that you've only been job hunting for three months and have been invited to three interviews is something many PhD students would consider a positive sign. It is unfortunate that two of those posts seemed like a less good match, but at least you were interviewed.

People often assume networking to involve schmoozing with bigwigs at conferences and talks. Personally I consider it more to be a case of ensuring that your peers and superiors have a chance of knowing that you (and your body of work) exist and may be suitable for a project they have in mind. Start by ensuring you have a decent and up to date professional online profile e.g. university webpage, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, Academia.Edu. You need to be Googleable.Secondly you can start networking now - it's never too late. Set up a Twitter account, follow people/institutions in your field, and start interacting. It's a lot less scary than face to face!

Given your personal circumstances, you should be applying for non-academic jobs too. It is not a cop-out or a failure - you need an income and there's nothing to be ashamed about that. Don't avoid your colleagues who may well be able to help/support you just because they have had some success- just accept that their journey is different to yours (they may even have their own burdens you don't know about).

Please cut yourself some slack. You haven't even totally finished the PhD process yet and you already have 3 months of work lined up, so try to focus on those positives.

Best of luck,

Hazy

To add... the type of PhD candidate (and subsequent career academic) that Fled describes do exist. To work alongside one can, in some cases, be inspiring as they sweep you along with their enthusiasm. In other cases, however, they can squash and trample those around them in the pursuit of their own vision. So, mixed bag.

I do not think all PhD candidates must have that kind of zeal. In some instances that zeal is misplaced anyhow. It may be an ideal to be a 'top tier' candidate if you want to devote your life to the pursuit of knowledge, but there are plenty of decent PhD candidates who will never make it to Professor and yet whose achievements are not to be discredited. So do not feel like you are only eligible to continue if you meet this description. That said, the "marathon not a sprint" adage is very true, and you will need to be able to keep plodding on even when the motivation starts to wane.

Back to the OP....