Hey Velony! First of all, congrats on the interview! I would try and see this as a positive thing- if they are interested in reading your dissertation then they must be keen to find out more about you. I did my MSc and PhD with the same supervisor, so she had already seen my work, but I think it's fairly common practice for them to ask for a sample of your work. It might be that they just want to find out a bit more about what you have been researching, and to see if you have good writing skills etc. I wouldn't worry too much about it- they will most likely ask you a bit about it at the interview, so if you feel that there were bits that were a bit on the weak side then it might be good to talk about what you would have done differently if you did it again etc. Research is a learning curve for everyone- we all look back and realised that we could have done it differently- so show them that you can critically analyse your own work and that you have thought about how you can improve it. That's a vital skill for any PhD student! And besides, I know fully-funded PhD students who just scraped a pass at MSc level, so a merit isn't bad going at all! Best of luck with your interview, let us know how it goes! KB

Hi PhiPhi! This sounds like a really tricky situation. There are a number of students where I am with the same supervisor (my primary supervisor) and most of us get on really well with her but there are a couple of people in the team who just can't stand her and hate working with her- it's strange. She is very high up in her field and can therefore appear quite intimidating when you don't know her very well, and I wonder if this is something that people can't get over when they have 'high-profile' supervisors. Do you feel intimidated when you are around them? Perhaps you are trying a bit too hard with trying to ask smart questions and so on- we've all tried to do it, I sure have and I gave it up a while ago now because I fell on my face too many times! But in a way that can make you so nervous about what you are going to say next that it makes it harder to take in what everyone else is saying. I guess the main thing is that it sounds like your work is up to scratch with respect to the important things, so it would be a shame to pack it in. Maybe your supervisors would actually rather you badger them more than you do if you aren't sure about something- in a way, that's a positive thing if they actually would like to offer you a bit more support. When is your next viva due? Perhaps it is worth at least persevering until then if you feel like you can. I guess we all have our confidence knocked at times through the PhD process, but it doesn't help if your supervisors are making you feel even worse! KB

Hey Mlis! First off, it's good to hear that things are getting a bit better for you. I won't bore you with my long history with bipolar disorder again (mainly the depressive side) except to tell you that I had to drop out of uni three times a few years ago, and have since managed to get back on my feet, and get through my 3rd year undergrad, MSc, and to where I am now (2nd year PhD) without taking any more extended periods off. So it can be beaten, and you will get through it. People can be funny with things like depression- there is an awful lot of ignorance surrounding it. There are 2 of us in my team at work who suffer with depression, and my supervisor has reacted in very different ways to each of us. With me, she has been fantastic- patient, understanding, supportive, everything I could ask for. With the other person she has been horrible- she has cut them off, withdrawn support, and doesn't make any effort to keep in touch. The only difference I can find between us is that I have always been upfront with my supervisor about my difficulties- I have had to be. I have always let her know if things are starting to go downhill, I keep in touch, and that way she know where I'm at. The other person was less straight about it and just disappeared off the scene with little explanation as to what the issue was or why the work wasn't getting done. I really think it is beneficial to speak to your supervisor and let them know what's happening, and what you are able to do, how you are getting back into your work etc, and ask them for their support. In addition, find out exactly where you stand with respect to eligibility for an extension so that you can stop worrying about the uncertainty. And get some support from elsewhere too- I have been seeing a uni counsellor for 6 years now, and I wouldn't have got through everything if I hadn't been able to go there, I really wouldn't. I don't suppose anyone likes to feel that they 'need counselling', but it has helped me no end, just having somewhere to go and spill. Finally- try to be nice to yourself, you have handled a horrifically shitty situation and you are coming out the other end now. You deserve a break, so try to stop giving yourself a hard time! Easier said than done, I know. Best wishes, KB

Hey Matt! I suspect that the key to this is not so much remembering the content of the papers, but knowing where to find them when you forget what's in them! Usually if I think a paper is going to be useful for me, I fill in a summary sheet and staple it to the front of the paper. Basically it just lists the main points of the paper, e.g. who the participants were, which measures were used, what the results were and additional relevant information. Of course, sometimes I simply don't have time to do this for every paper, so I tend to shove them in box files according to subject...so one box file for papers included in my systematic review, one file for papers to do with relevant interventions, one for papers covering the theoretical perspectives etc. I usually manage to find what I'm looking for and refresh my mind, although sometimes I have to root in a few files to put my hand on it. Not perfect, but it helps. I suppose as you become more familiar with your topic and go to conferences and network etc you will become more familiar with researchers' names and studies too, and also when you start writing papers yourself. I'll be interested to see other people's tactics! KB

Hi there! I think it will depend a bit on what subject and university you are applying to...I don't know of anyone in my department with less than a 2.1 but I certainly know of people in other departments with 2.2s and a pass at MSc level, so it certainly isn't impossible. It will probably help if you did well in the research components of your previous degrees. I think you should definitely contact the university or supervisors where you want to do your PhD and see what they say- I certainly think in terms of academic level you don't actually need a first class degree etc to be able to do a PhD, the main problem will lie with what your competitors have on their CV! It might be a good idea to get some work experience or a research assistant job or something first if you struggle to get anywhere, just to strengthen your CV etc. Give it a shot! KB

Hey Moumou! I 'm not sure I can offer you any helpful advice particularly, but stuff to do with funding is often very political and sneaky and I'm not surprised you are frustrated with the whole situation. I was very lucky and ended up with several offers of funding for my project in the end, but I have seen friends being messed around and hanging on for ages just hoping that the funding will eventually become available. I wouldn't be so sure that everybody involved would have known that you had no chance of getting the funding- my first application for funding was rejected, and we (me and my supervisor) found out later on that the funding was only ever going to go to specific supervisors and projects, yet others had been encouraged to apply. My supervisor is very high up in the department and she hadn't been aware of what was happening- it was all very dodgy and underhand. My supervisor kicked up a fuss and persuaded them to offer me funding (which I didn't need anyway in the end as I was then awarded a separate scholarship), so it turned out fine. But one thing I have noted is that people who really persist usually do get the funding in the end. I have a couple of pals who spent all of their MSc degrees and then a further year looking for funding, and both got it eventually and have now started. So don't give up. And a further thing I would say is, don't compromise too much on your project and supervisors if it's tough to get the funding- it's tempting to just say sod it, and go for a different project with funding already attached, but you need your PhD to be right for you. Best of luck with it all, let us know how you get on! KB

Hey! Yeah, it was similar at my uni- to get a distinction you had to get at least 70% for the thesis, and you had to get a minimum of 65% for the taught modules, but the two combined had to average over 70%. So if you got 70 for the thesis but only 67 for the modules then you wouldn't get a distinction, but if you got 78 for the thesis and 67 for the modules it would average over 70 and would be a distinction. Like you, one of my mates was right on the borderline with her modules, with about 64.9 when she needed 65.1 or something to average over 70, but they gave it to her. I would think they will look at each case separately and I would be very surprised if they didn't give you a distinction on the basis of 0.2%. It's not guaranteed but I reckon you'll be okay! Good luck, let us know! KB

Hey LoveHz! It depends a bit on your topic and your project, but plenty people I know doing PhDs work a steady 9-5 and get finished in 3-3.5 years. Personally I tend to work longer hours than that, and sometimes evening/weekends too, but that's partly because I'm trying to get stuff published and I have teaching commitments too. Most people in my subject area (Clinical psychology) take 4 years to finish, but that's mainly down to aspects of clinical projects that are very time-consuming, such as applying for NHS ethics approval, recruiting vulnerable participant groups etc. Certainly I have friends in other subjects, including economics and biology, who stick rigidly to 9-5 each weekday and who are expecting to finish on time. I also have a pal with 2 kids who works just when they are at school (so about 9.30-3.30) and sometimes when they are in bed, and she is managing quite well. I guess things will be more hectic around write-up time, but I think in general you will probably be okay as long as you are consistent and prepared to be a bit flexible! Good luck with it! KB

Hi Phdee! Well it sounds like a tall order to me! I dedicate around 40-50 hours per week on average to my PhD and I am not expecting to finish until about the 3.5 year mark! So 17.5 hours per week for four years sounds a bit tough. Having said that, there are major differences between projects. My project involves working with people with Alzheimer's disease, and it is very tough to recruit enough participants. Thus my project can only move forward as fast as I can recruit. I could work around the clock to get all the written stuff done but I still can't make my project move any quicker overall than the speed at which I can recruit. So you need to factor in things like that too. However, some projects are based on already existing data, so are less dependent on recruitment and data gathering etc...it is more a case of just doing analyses on data that is already out there and getting it written up. Also worth bearing in mind are issues related to what you are hoping to achieve during that time- are you hoping to publish your work, present at conferences etc? That all takes a lot of time too. Is there some overlap between your job and your PhD? i.e. does your job involve doing stuff that will be part of your PhD or is it entirely separate? If it is entirely separate then I think what they are asking is a bit unrealistic and I would ask for more time to devote to your PhD, but other people on here might disagree of course! Best wishes, KB

You could try breaking your foot?! I was convinced that I would pile the pounds on while my foot is in plaster because I'm normally in the gym 5-6 days per week doing loads of cardio work, but I've been in plaster for 6 weeks now and actually lost a few pounds because my appetite has gone now I'm not exercising! I also have a thyroid condition and am on medication for bipolar disorder which both make it very difficult to lose weight, but with a lot of exercise and a relatively healthy diet I stay reasonably slim. The best bet is to find exercise that you enjoy and isn't a chore- try a few different things with your mates until you find something fun that you can stick to. I used to just do the same thing in the gym every evening, but now I alternate it with aerobics and kickaerobics classes, and drag my mates along to the classes too, and it's a lot easier to stick to. I always like to exercise to music too, it's a nice way to end a busy day at work listening to your favourite tunes and unwinding your mind! Personally I don't like to play competitive sports in the evening because my concentration is shot at by then and I play badly and then get pissed off with myself, but we're all different! KB

======= Date Modified 14 Jan 2010 22:54:57 =======
Yeah, it depends on what you're writing really. I wrote up my final MSc dissertation (10,000 words) in about a month- but that was after I'd done the research, already drafted the lit review/introduction and method, done the stats on the results, and decided what I needed to write in my discussion! For my PhD I got a 10,000 word systematic review published and from start to finish that took about 6 months to write, including all of the searching and reading etc. I usually over-estimate the time it will take me to write something. Once I know what I need to say I usually write very quickly- it's the working out what you need to write that takes the time. I think it's really important to have a good plan and know roughly what yoiu want to say before you start writing. Obviously you will think of new things to say along the way, but it's always reassuring to have a nice detailed plan in front of you to work from! How long have you got until the deadline? I would have thought you would be okay with a merit too with most funding sources...but no harm in aiming high. Having said that, I wouldn't have got my scholarship with less than a distinction but that was a strange one-off thing that went purely on academic achievement and had nothing to do with the proposal and supervisors etc. I don't think many research councils actually insist on a distinction. Good luck! KB

======= Date Modified 14 Jan 2010 16:11:26 =======
Hey! I officially have two supervisors but I see one much more than the other. I have regular meetings with my primary supervisor, whose work is very close in nature to my own, and she guides me, reads my work etc. My other supervisor is incredibly busy and I only tend to see him informally, i.e. in passing or if I'm the teaching assistant for a class he's doing, and at my review meetings each year. In my case the second supervisor is only really there in case my first is unavailable for a long period of time, i.e. on study leave, or in case she should leave altogether. On the few matters I have spoken to my second sup about, his thoughts and opinions tend to clash with those of my primary sup, and I usually take the advice of my primary sup. I guess the second supervisor might be useful in some cases if your topic is situated between two different fields of research and you have a sup in both, or is inter-disciplinary, but for me I could manage fine with just the one! I guess you should just check out your primary sup's reasons for wanting someone else on board- if it's just down to better expertise etc then I would go for it. One thing I do like about my situation is that my primary sup deals with everything- I have friends with two supervisors who are constantly being batted back and forth, with supervisors not really working together, but asking them to do different tasks, nominating the other to read your work etc, and I think sometimes there are politics going on too, so probably best to have a 'primary' and a 'secondary' sup, so you know who is really in charge, rather than having two who are supposed to be equally responsible for you! KB

Well I'm not too sure, but I think a meta-synthesis is kind of like a meta-analysis, but without the stats! So for a meta-analysis you could combine a load of results from different studies so that you have a much greater N, and then do your stats on this new, bigger group. For a meta-synthesis, I think it is about taking either results or models/concepts that have been derived from results, and trying to fit them together into one model or one over-arching theory that takes into account all of the models/concepts. So you don't do any statistics, but attempt to combine a number of different theories or models into one 'bigger, better' theory/model, for the purposes of pulling research together (i.e. synthesize it) and creating a better understanding of a phenomenon. Hmmm, I've just read what I've written and I'm not sure it makes sense! Hope it helps a bit...I'm sure someone on here will know more about it! KB

Hey! Well, the good thing is that a career in research can be quite flexible and allows for different styles of working. To some degree, you have to be well organised and be able to work to deadlines etc, but in other ways you are free to work as you please as long as you get results. Doing a PhD is about getting into a good routine and trying to work at a steady pace and be consistent, but even within this there is room for a huge variation in the ways that people work, and it can be trial and error to find a way that works for you. There is no reason you can't do a PhD- you are clearly good at what you do- so go for it. It sounds like the main reason you would need to change your ways is more to do with how it is making you feel than anything else! KB