In that case it probably doesn't fit neatly into one of my categories! I would contact the departmental admin and just ask. I don't see anything wrong with doing that.

It's not so much that the university in question is the cause of variation in the funding amount, but rather the source of the funding.

Funding sources may include the following:
1. Government backed research councils (e.g. MRC, BBRSC, AHRC)
2. Industrial-academic partnerships (e.g. CASE studentships)
3. Purely industrial/commercial sources, usually if the PhD is based in industry
4. Charities and trusts which support research (e.g. Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, small charitable trusts)
5. Universities themselves (this is rare)

In my experience, the best paid studentships of the non-industrial type are from large charities. For example, a friend of mine at a big university in London started on about £12-3K per year with a university-funded studentship, I was on £14-15K a year with an MRC studentship at the same institution, but a studentship from CRUK or BHF would have started about £17-8K and have had larger annual increases than the other two.

So really you need to check to see what the funding source is to get a feel for the amount likely to be paid. The only other thing to bear in mind is that stipends in London will be £2-3K a year higher than elsewhere as they factor in 'London allowance' which is supposed to offset the increased cost of living in London.

Hope this helps

I would have to pay for the MSc I'm about to start, but I got a funding offer in the end. I was bracing myself for paying for it though, as there were very few sources of funding.

In general masters funding is a lot more scare than PhD funding, which is kind of odd given that some fields (especially arts) require you to have an MSc to do a PhD. But I guess if that wasn't the case then the competition for PhD funding would be huge.

======= Date Modified 16 Sep 2009 00:17:46 =======
Science Direct will only give you stuff from certain publications. You need a general database. PubMed is highly popular for the medical end of bioscience. Web of Science is also worth a look. Some people like Google Scholar, but I've never used it in a big way.

Free articles are most commonly available from 'open access' journals which don't have any subscription fees for anyone. Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a group of open access journals that has a number of bioscience arms: http://www.plos.org/

It does depend entirely on what you're searching for and what your overall aim is, but you should be aware that unless you use a thorough database like PubMed or Web of Science, you could easily miss out on some key literature (Science Direct only covers ~25% of journals). In fact if you were to do a 'systematic review' you might even use both of those in combination. But as I said, it depends what you are trying to find out.

I think huanic's posts may need a little editing...

On the topic of the opening post, I share a similar apprehension although my perspective is a bit different. I'm about to start a Masters after failing to complete a PhD (which left me with no confidence in my academic skills) and then doing a research/admin job which, although often stimulating, wasn't really the sort of post in which I could get to grips with hardcore reading/writing.

I don't have many pearls of wisdom, therefore, but what I am trying to do at the moment is read some of the recommended materials, as I know that my reading speed isn't what it once was, so I want to work that up again.

Good luck with your studies - I look forward to reading helpful advice from other people.

It may vary from place to place, but in general:
-An MSc is usually 50-70% teaching, with the rest being a research project.
-An MRes is usually about 30% teaching, with the rest being one or more research projects (e.g. a major and a minor one, or 3 mini projects of about the same duration).

In terms of how they are regarded, that probably depends on the institute and course content. Probably the best way for you to choose which to pursue is to look at your current qualifications/experience and see what your existing strength/weaknesses are. Assuming you want to do a PhD then you will need research experience as well as knowledge, so if you feel that you're fairly clued up on your field but really lack experience, go for the MRes, or if you have plenty of research experience but want to get a deeper insight into a specialism, try the MSc.

Good luck :-)

I would definitely do a Masters if I were you. Firstly, you would probably need more knowledge than your current course has given you. Secondly, it would give you a better insight into the field which would help you decide if this is what you really want to pursue. Finally, it is really important to have some practical lab experience before starting a bioscience PhD, and the Masters would be a good way of acquiring that. It might also be worth trying to get some additional vacation experience in a lab.

Good luck!

Thank you for the apology, Phdbug, although I don't think you really need to apologise to me at all. I'm sorry to hear about your RSI. I hope it is a temporary aberration and doesn't prevent you achieving what you desire.

======= Date Modified 28 Aug 2009 18:07:03 =======

I don't imagine the rules for PhD funding are likely to change any time soon.

Regarding the 2:2/MSc pass scenario - you would have met the requirements for funding, but whether you get it or not would depend on how you compare with the competition. That will partly depend on your field e.g. I imagine that if you're in psychology it might be quite tough as it's an over-subscribed field, whereas it might be a bit easier if you're an engineer/mathematician. But I could be wrong.

One thing - your comment about not doing an MRes because of time commitments. I would look very carefully into the respective time commitments of an MSc vs and MRes if I were you - I would actually imagine that an MRes was *less* demanding out of hours, because an MSc will involve more essay writing/book learning/exam revision, whereas with a research project there is an element of just getting on with it. See if you can get any more info on this.

======= Date Modified 27 Aug 2009 10:16:23 =======
What do you want to do afterwards? Industry? A PhD?

What specific topics most interest you and you see yourself working in?

I was in the last year group to do the old style A levels, before AS levels became so common. Back then the norm was to do 3 and only very motivated/academic people did 4. With the new system, 3.5-4 became more common.

University offers are made on the basis of predicted grades, but they are only conditional offers i.e. if you don't get those grades there is no guarantee that your offer will still stand.

The A* grade hasn't yet been brought in (AFAIK) but it does seem to be on the cards. I think there is a place for it - the range of marks that can give you an A is quite broad and I think there is room for subclassification.

I did science and maths A levels which I think were a good preparation for uni, but that was partly because of the way my sixth form college taught them (we were encouraged to do a lot more self-directed learning in science than one might have done in a school). I think A level maths on its own is probably inadequate preparation for a degree in maths - ideally one should do 2 maths A levels, but I think this has always been the case.