Hmmm, I think highers are good in the sense that you can take more of them, but then the Scottish degrees tend to take an extra year which seems to be making up for the fact that people with highers haven't covered the same depth of material as people with A-levels, although they have more breadth. I took A-levels and went to Edinburgh Uni and was offered the chance to go straight into second year because I had four good A-levels and the first year of the degree (in Biology) was basically to make sure that people with highers and A-levels were up to the same standard. I don't know if this is the same for all subjects at the uni or not. I turned down the offer of going straight into second year because I fancied a nice chilled out year (!) but this meant I could basically take whatever modules I wanted in my first year (only 2 out of the 6 modules I took were actually related to my degree title!) which was quite nice. I ended up taking 2 outside modules in Psychology, really enjoyed them and part way through second year decided to leave my biology degree to do clinical psychology at a different uni so their system kind of backfired on them a little! And here I am, PhD-ing in clinical psychology still. Very glad I took those outside modules! KB

Hey Fred. I hope you've made your Doc appointment by now. Just wanted to reassure you really that having anything like that on your medical record shouldn't harm your career prospects in any way at all. I have bipolar disorder (used to be known as manic depression) and had to drop out of uni several times and restart the year when things were really really bad a few years back. My doctor and hospital notes are full of mental health issues including a number of hospital admissions (my diagnosis even appears on my CRB check) and this has not held me back even though people have been aware of my problems. I got myself back to uni, got a first for my degree, a distinction for my MSc, and won a scholarship to fund my PhD. Although my supervisors are aware of the issues I have had, I genuinely feel as though I have been treated according to my academic abilities and have not been discriminated against because of my health. In fact it is actually beneficial for me that they know, it makes it easier to explain when I am not feeling too good, so that we can plan around it in the best way we can. My part time job (which I was doing when I was an undergrad- not any more) also welcomed me back with open arms. I would definitely recommend you go see your doctor and also a uni counsellor if there's one where you are. If you need time off then take it- there are no prizes for running yourself into the ground. Best wishes, hope you are feeling better soon. KB

Hey! Just wanted to add that a PhD isn't necessarily for the 'introverted', and doesn't have to be a lonely venture. I think it really depends on many factors, such as what you are studying and where you are doing it, and how the department is organised. I am part of a team of about 10 in my department (a couple of profs, docs, research assistants and some PhD students) whose research is in the same field, and our offices are next to each other which means we are always back and to, whether we are asking each other for advice or support, or just having a natter. In addition to this we have team meetings and do team activities both inside and outside of work, so my own experience of the PhD is certainly not a lonely one- it is in fact quite a sociable one. Obviously within the team our projects are different, so in one sense you are on your own with your own project, but this doesn't have to be isolating. In addition, I have made a number of friends through teaching, which adds to the list of friendly faces where I work. I can see that the experience is very different for others in the department who are not part of a wider team and whose supervisors don't have other PhD students etc, but I just wanted to highlight that this isn't always the case. I love my PhD and would advise anyone thinking about doing one to make sure the topic is something you really are enthusiastic about- this is what keeps me ticking and makes what I do a pleasure, rather than something to drag myself through in the hope that I will get a better job at the end of it. Best wishes, KB

Hey! I think it probably depends quite heavily on the journal and on the individual reviewers. I recently got 2 reviewers' comments back after about 7 or 8 weeks which seemed quite reasonable, but others in my department have waited for 4 or 5 months for theirs and had almost forgotten that they had ever submitted a paper to start with...Just a case of fingers crossed I think! Good luck, KB

I agree- I approached my PhD supervisor right at the beginning of my MSc (October 2007) to start my PhD in October 2008, and this gave us enough time to meet up and talk about the project, put a detailed proposal together, and fire off a few applications for funding. It can also be good to get in there early if the potential supervisor is particularly popular with respect to people wanting him/her to supervise their work- beat the crowd so to speak. A number of people were after a PhD with my supervisor, and part of the reason I got lucky was simply because I got in there first with my project (and then the funding) before she was bombarded with other requests which she either didn't have time to supervise or couldn't obtain funding for. Good luck! KB

Hey Silvia. I'm in a similar position to you for my PhD, and also for my MSc which I finished last year. For the MSc I was told that it was acceptable to have 'research questions' instead of a specific hypothesis, since the research was exploratory. I don't know if the same applies for the PhD thesis, but certainly I have started out with research questions instead of specific hypotheses, because in my field there simply isn't enough existing research to form hypotheses from! Thus I am back to the 'exploratory' type study- but as another poster mentioned, it is important to calculate your minimum sample size accurately to account for the type of analysis and number of calculations you are expecting to perform on the data. Have fun! KB

Hey magictime! To get back to the original question, I really don't think it will make the slightest difference in the long run. Funding is so hard to get at the moment, particularly in some fields, that is a brilliant achievement to obtain funding at all. At the end of your PhD you will most likely be judged on publications and attendance/presentations at conferences (as well as the obvious stuff like your topic and who you have been working with- supervisors, collaborators etc). So I really wouldn't stress. I am funded by a random one-off external scholarship which was based entirely on academic achievement, with very little regard for the actual PhD proposal etc....I guess it says a lot about my academic achievements but not so much about my actual choice of topic and the proposal! I did get an offer of departmental funding as well but of course I took the external scholarship so that the department could offer the funding to someone else. Anyway, I honestly don't give it a second thought! Good luck with your PhD! KB

I think thick skin is the way forwards...I haven't experienced anything quite this extreme but I have had a particularly competitive PhD student in our department making snide comments about my subject area/my progress/the systematic literature review I have recently submitted for publication. Think along the lines of 'god your project must be sooo boring, you have to do so much paperwork to get near your participants' referring to all the NHS ethics stuff I have to get through to start my testing; 'I can't believe it's taken you this long to get going, I've been testing since October' referring to the fact he is just testing students which can go through School ethics in a fortnight; and 'what a waste of time, who ever reads published literature reviews anyway' referring to my recent submission to a well-regarded journal. I just remind myself that he is completely ignorant and try to ignore it. There is no need to put down other people's PhDs- we are not in direct competition and I think these people are either insecure about their own work, jealous of your progress, or just clueless. Leave them to it! KB

Haha you lucky thing, I wish my data was ready and waiting for me lol! You should be fine with 18.5 hours of work on top of that- your analysis can be done whenever works best for you and you won't be pinned down to testing all day every day. Go for it! KB

Hey there! I would say it definitely depends on what subject you are studying, and whether you are expected to be doing lab work or need to be out testing all day every day etc. Personally, there is no way I could fit 18 hours of work in per week around my PhD, even half that would be pushing it! But if the hours for your PhD and/or your job are flexible and you can adjust these to fit around other commitments then you might be just fine- I know people who work far fewer hours than me and who have done their PhDs alongside various other part-time jobs and have managed just fine! KB

Hi! I would tend to agree with Missspacey- if you want to carry on in research then an MPhil is probably a good plan. The MSc would be considered appropriate as a pre-cursor to a PhD if it was an accredited by the research council as providing suitable research training in preparation for a PhD. These degrees tend to be part taught but with a substantial research component. But it sounds as though yours was fully taught, so probably didn't focus so much on research skills, thus an MPhil would be a good move, particularly if you want to go into research. I don't think a PhD can really be considered as 2 MPhils- it is a lot more demanding than a masters and is expected to be of a much higher standard. Best wishes, KB.

======= Date Modified 18 Jul 2009 21:23:16 =======
Hey there. I think subjects and unis differ with respect to what you should have done by the first year review but the main thing is to have something to show for your 9 months of work. You should meet with your supervisor regularly, and he/she or the department should set you targets and give you an idea of what you need to have ready for your review. For my 9 month review I had a detailed project proposal completed, a comprehensive literature review (about 15,000 words) written, one paper submitted for publication, NHS and School ethical approval obtained for my project, and a time plan for the rest of the PhD. Some people will have some data by this point and some won't- it just depends on the type of project. Some people seemed to have done more than me in the 9 months and some less than me. I wouldn't worry too much, I don't know anyone from my year who failed at this point, and if you meet with your supervisor regularly then you will know whether you are on target or not. Good luck with your PhD, KB

Hi there. I think you would really need to make enquiries at specific universities to see what is acceptable in your field. In very competitive subject areas you would need at least a 2.1 and a masters (preferably a first and a distinction at masters for the best chance of funding), but in a lot of other fields it is a lot less tough. A friend of mine in economics got a fully funded PhD with a 2.2 and a pass at masters, so you can see how much entry requirements vary according to subject. I don't know much about engineering, but I don't think it is too competitive compared to some other topics. I would imagine that with a 2.2 you would at least need a masters degree, but best to speak to a few departments you are interested in applying to and find out. Good luck, KB.

Hi! It is worth checking with potential employers /companies which they would see as more relevant or useful. I know it doesn't sound as though there is much difference between MA and MSc but make your choice wisely- in my subject (which is completely different to yours!) we were strongly advised to take the masters as MSc rather than MA, as this university only accepts the MSc as the masters which students are required to take prior to applying for a PhD. It doesn't sound like you are aiming for a PhD anyway, but I would still spend a little time checking out the differences between the courses and finding out which is recommended for your area. Good luck, KB

Hi again January! The other thing I should have mentioned before is that sometimes these checks are actually to protect other people who you might be working with....if you are working with kids/older people/ill people or whatever, they might need to just make sure that you are up to date on your vaccinations etc. Occupational health did check that out as well with myself and a few PhD colleagues (and sent some people for Hep B jabs etc) but they were generally quite inconsistent with who they checked out and who they didn't. I honestly don't think you have anything to worry about- as one of the others pointed out, if they excluded everyone who had ever had any sort of illness such as depression or eating disorders, half the population would be out of work! Best wishes, KB.