A supervisor who gives a $#!t will intervene quite heavily, for one simple reason.

PhD failures do not look good on their record and it is their interests as well as yours that you pass. If that means a heavy dose of rewriting of students theses, as many of us have found out so be it!!!

======= Date Modified 28 Aug 2011 11:46:01 =======
Do you need this third, 'bullying' supervisor? Would the process be more bearable if this person was out of the picture? The quarrels between that supervisor and one of your others cannot be helping.

If this supervisor's set of skills are important to your PhD, is there not someone who can replace him? If things are not working out with a supervisor, you can in extremis ask for a change.

If you do quit make sure you've employment lined up first, as it is easier to find work if you are currently doing something else (even being a student).

I can directly relate to this, as my supervisor had a habit of rewriting large sections of text. Fortunately, he wasn't computer savvy, so it wasn't done electronically without my knowledge. Also, his writing style was at that stage better than mine, as I had to learn how to write in an academic style and I have a feeling this is what you'll have to do to match her.

I mentioned the large number of corrections and changes my supervisor was making to my supervisor to my predecessor who was there as a post-doc whilst I was writing up. My predecessor said just let him have his way, as that way I'd be rid of the thesis and be submitted alot quicker. I wanted it also to be my work rather than his, however, I see in retrospect had I had my way I'd probably be hit by major corrections and the whole process dragging on for at least another six months.

The question is do you want it written up and finished with or do you want this to drag on for even longer with her either getting her way any so you can submit and get it over with? Or do you want to be hit with more extensive corrections because you kept things how you want them and the examiners perceive there to weaknesses in your work?

It sounds like she's doing her job as a supervisor, albeit a little overzealously.

If you still get hit with corrections and it's something she's done, at least you know it not one of your bits that the examiner didn't like.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Hi,

Can anyone download and e-mail the following to me (PM for e-mail address)?

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2011.08.004

To cut a long story short, it's a corrected proof of one of my own papers (and my last) with my former PhD supervisor as co-author. There's been a few problems explaining some of the errors on the proofs we looked at. We don't fully trust the Elsevier technical centre outsourced to Chennai to have implemented our requested proof alterations correctly. One of the corrections is critical, the others I can live with.

I know we'll eventually receive a final proof from Elsevier, however, by then it will be too late to get back in touch as at that stage it will be in a specific issue of the journal mentioned. If the alterations haven't been done correctly, I unfortunately need to see their corrected proof now so I can act.

I don't have download access from Science Direct anymore, the reason I'm asking.


Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

======= Date Modified 22 Aug 2011 11:11:10 =======
You might want to read the following article, not very long but to the point.

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/postgraduate/postgraduate-study/the-alternative-way-to-get-a-phd-1942607.html

If you want to look at Universities offering a 'Phd by publication' (using that as the search term) and regulations affecting this, Google using the UK Google search engine (http://www.google.co.uk).

It seems you only need a few papers to fulfil the criteria, but they must provide a original contribution to you field as per a normal PhD. You will also need to be prepared to travel to the UK at least once to attend viva voce after providing a supporting statement as to why your work is an original contribution. I'm not sure what this entails, however, this may be a substatial document in it's own right.

Can anyone else make comment on this?

======= Date Modified 19 Aug 2011 13:12:31 =======

======= Date Modified 16 Aug 2011 16:11:34 =======
I've added potential funding bodies for different fields of study now to Question 7 in my below blog (link reposted for convenience).

http://www.wearthesis.talktalk.net

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

======= Date Modified 15 Aug 2011 20:59:42 =======
I guess it varies on subject and background.  I was already a materials engineer, therefore I was able to get stuck straight into the literature review and get the practical work up and running.  I got off to a flyer.  A big help was my predecessor was around as a post-doc for my entire PhD, which was a big help.  A good indication of progress was I consulted him less and less as time went on (everything I needed to know was in his thesis and his predecessor's thesis anyway) and left him largely be after about a year.

I had original findings within a month.  However, I had a large data matrix to set up, so presentable data with conferences and poster presentations took nearly a year.  This was two pronged though, so once the data was there was lots of it with quite a few presentations to follow.  I had an experimental rig, which although temperamental (nicknamed 'the beast') was literally churning out prolific amounts of publishable data.

I'll comment I decided to do literature review and early experimental work in parallel, as doing nothing but saturation literature review would have done my head in (i.e. a bit of one, a bit of the other as I went along).  Literature review took six months rather than three as a result.

18 month progress report went well, with three quarters of the data matrix complete.  At that stage, I was optimistic submitting not too far off.  With nine months to go, I started write-up (hours ramped up quickly to 12 to 16 hours a day).  All went well until discussion stage and that's where it got seriously difficult.  I had to learn the standard style to write in and it was over a year late when I finally got the results, discussion and conclusion into a water-tight package my primary was willing to let me submit. This was a killer to get through.

As I've said elsewhere, he gave me the fright of my life after submission meaning I knuckled down and on alcoholic advice of predecessor revised anything that I might be expected to know (others have said that there's not much you can revise and depending on subject and field I respect that).  That took two and a half months up to viva.   I'm glad he did as I was far better prepared and the viva itself was a straightforward affair (though the day itself was a bit nuts as said elsewhere).   I don't honestly know had I not been prepared properly and if I'd shown a sign of weakness, if that would have been the case .

Corrections done in a week and I finally returned to normal about ten days after.   Two papers came out during the PhD and one shortly after, written by my supervisors though I provided a good part of the data.

I returned to the data later as I promised my external examiner and strangled out a further six papers and a reference book chapter from the data produced, including data left out of the thesis (I produced far too much data, part of the reason for the delay in submission to be honest).   The last of these papers is at final proof stage a good few years later.

EDIT / ADDITION: It takes some people up to a year to produce something meaningful (some longer), so if you feel if progress is slow at eight months it's not panic stations yet. If you feel you should be doing more, the meeting with your supervisors is the chance to ask what more or different you can do.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

Talking to the internal examiner is the way to go if possible.

Before you formally resubmit, I would see if it's okay to sit down with the internal and go through your list of changes.  If the internal is happy, then you'll be less likely to have any problems with the external if all the changes they requested are ticked off satisfactorily.

There is still the slight danger of downgrade to MPhil if the corrections are not in line with what the examiners had in mind, however, if you've shown that you have attempted to satisfactorily address their problems then the worst is they'll probably hand it back to say they need more done.  You supervisor should have made sure you've done the corrections properly anyway.

======= Date Modified 14 Aug 2011 22:45:35 =======
Keenbean,

Again congratulations.

I agree with most of what you say except for revision.

It may be my rather bizarre viva day (events surrounding the viva were bizarre more than the viva itself) turned out as more of a straightforward chat as it may have been clear from the off that my level of preparation for it was was very high. My supervisor literally frightened the life out of me post-submission and I didn't throttle down post-submission as a result. Both my supervisor and predecessor told me to revise subject areas I would be expected to know, in my case analytical techniques, general materials engineering and how characterisation equipment worked for example. In plain English, there was a lot of material to cover.

In the end, the external examiner didn't touch on some of the peripheral areas, however, despite alot of intervention on the part of my supervisor I was comfortably able to cope with anything thrown at me. I believe if I hadn't prepared properly, then some of the conversations may have gone over my head and that would not have looked good.

That said, I have a shocking short term memory therefore in my case the two and half months up to viva allowed me to lock alot of the facts in my head. :-)

I guess it may depend on person and subject area and given anyone going through a PhD has been working intensively on that subject for three or more years, then many will feel extensive revision may not be needed. It maybe I went over the top, though in retrospect it was not a chance I was willing to take.

The decrease in academic posts may be due to Universities trying to cut their cost base. In the next few years, I believe there will be an even bigger loss in academic posts as the new tuition fee regime is going to frighten one hell of a lot of people from going to University. It's possible the decrease in academics even now might be related to this.

I admit I'm guessing here.

I like, have a star!!! (up)