======= Date Modified 29 Apr 2011 11:44:34 =======

Facebook is for unimportant things. Never put anything important on there as everything (weddings, births, deaths, new jobs, etc.) there seems to become trivialised.

Don't announce what you're doing next and only mention if someone asks what you're doing when you're Masters is finished. Announcing it sounds a bit arrogant (even if not intended that way) and I would avoid that.

Finally, may I offer my congratulations on you starting your PhD.

I'm sorry, but if possible you should obtain your supervisor's reference, if only to verify what you were doing during your PhD. A prospective employer expects a reference from your last post and in your case, this is your PhD. Wait until after viva and a pass with minor corrections may mellow your supervisor's mood towards you.

Ask for and accept that reference, keeping in mind at best it will be ambiguous. If your supervisor gives a really bad reference, the that reference needs to be specific in what your faults were otherwise the supervisor may lay themselves open to a conversation with your solicitor about further action (yes, you can take action for a bad reference in extremis if liabellous comments are made). The worst that should happen is your supervisor may refuse to give you a reference and if this happens, you can then say to a prospective employer that this was the case (still not ideal), using your prefious good references.

I can relate to your problem as I have an extremely bad relationship with my direct line manager and (de)mentor (yes, that bad)at post-doc. I left without a reference and it took nearly a year to find fresh employment. I did the same as you and eventually a series of good references from my PhD supervisors, other colleagues from PhD time and a couple from previous employers helped.

(As I've commented elsewhere I also had to conceal my PhD, as I was seen as overqualified, however, as you're applying for a psot in academia that is not relevant here.)

I'm just reading the other replies here as regards the clothing issue. I'm gathering you've added the option in your poll as you're used to wearing a skirt in your job in the real world. Fair enough.

Can I suggest you wear whatever is better for cycling in and changing into a skirt when you get into Uni (stick skirt and matching shoes in backpack that you'll inevitably carry your notes and other materials in)?

Also, the world is a lot more casual these days so don't worry about wearing trousers and there's plenty older women wear jeans these days too!!! You're a student again, so no one gives a monkeys.

I'm wrong side of 40 and as a man still comfortably get away with T-shirt and jeans outside the normal working environment (at a point in life as little as ten years ago I'd expect not to be doing so).

Ian (aliais Beefy)

PrettyPolicy,

Again, I'll be blunt. You can't have it all and you have reached a crossroads. Which direction do you want to take?

I've also done Masters as well as PhD. As you've considered, the masters was a shorter intensive peak, a short scrap. A PhD is a full scale military campaign in comparison.

Ian (Mackem_Beefy)

PrettyPolicy,

I understand you want to keep the security of remaining in some sort of position whilst you your PhD so that you still have the job before, during and after regardless of whether you finish the PhD, you succeed or fail.

However, you are looking at a fully funded position and that implies the PhD is in itself full time.

Let me spell out you you what kind of committment you may be facing with your PhD. Whilst my PhD did not start out too badly as regards time, it soon developed into 10 hours six days a week as literature review progressed into main research phase. As write-up progressed, I found myself pushing 12 to 16 hour days 6 to 7 days a week (days off were a rarity) for a period of two years (I overran by a year, normal for PhD candidates). This intensity continued between submission and viva as I crammed for viva.

Others will tell you different things based on their own experiences and yes, there are one or two who managed to finish inside the three years. However, one thing many will probably agree with me on is the intensity of work you could face is not appreciated until it is upon you and you wonder where your time has gone.

I don't see how you can remain committed to both your employer (at 80%) and your PhD (100% at a guess?). Even if the PhD is part-time, you're facing quite a juggling act with your time planning and I don;t know if I could have fully focussed on either if trying to do both.

If doing your job is supplementing doing your PhD (i.e. there is clear information transfer and relevance between the two), that will probably reduce your workload as you may be doing one as you are doing the other. However, if this is not completely the case, I suggest you examine what is more important to you.

If remaining in employment is paramount in what are difficult circumstances at the moment for most, I'd be tempted to delay until the job market improves. Also important is what you want to do afterwards. Do you see yourself in academia or in the real world (possibly with your current or similar organisation)? If you want to go into academia, I'd be tempted to jump ship. If not, then this means the PhD is a personal challenge and you have to ask if you want to risk your career for this challenge.

You seem to want both (keep job whilst doing PhD) and I personally think that's a tough ask.

Ian (alias Beefy)

======= Date Modified 24 Apr 2011 12:11:44 =======

I'm going to be blunt as it's how I feel I can be the best help to you, having had reasonable experience on both the real world and academic sides of the fence. I see your bosses point of view. If you come up with the above, the likelihood is you'll find yourself well up the list to go in a few months time. At times like this, companies will look to keep on only the better, more committed staff and the above makes you appear anything but.

Will your PhD benefit your employer? That's the one possible argument you can use, however, if the two are unrelated then I'd think very long and hard about what is most important to you.

You either want the job (career) or the PhD. If you want the PhD, look at a fully funded, full time option so that at least you have an income.

======= Date Modified 24 Apr 2011 12:04:02 =======
Have you applied for jobs, hiding your PhD?

I had to do that to get back into work, as I was appearing overqualified compared to other candidates. I think my boss and colleagues know now (3.5 years in), however, I'm not making an issue of it or even talking about it. For me, it's lesson learnt and the most important thing is to have a job.

If possible, get your former supervisors etc. to portray you PhD period as a Research Assistant post.

As someone who went through PhD as a single lad, I'm not in a strong position to comment.

However, a neighbour twice attempted PhD part-time whilst raising a family. Both times, he had to pack in due to the demands of raising a family not allowing him enough time to do his stdies and research. Another lad had a young family the time I was doing my PhD. He got there, but after starting full time a year before me, he didn't get his PhD until two years after me. In the meanwhile, he started post-doc elsewhere whilst writing up and was fired for not promptly completing (his new employers told him to get sorted in five months).

I don't have actual figures here, however, the stress inflicted by the demands of a PhD on relationships should not be underestimated and the PhD has seen many couples go their separate ways. On top of this, I can't imagine anything more stressful than raising a child during it's first few years of life.

Think long and hard about this and ask youself whether or not you should wait until the children are older (say school age when you can get more time to yourself).

======= Date Modified 22 Apr 2011 17:12:48 =======

You're in it for the right reasons (joy of studying, challenge, etc.), go for it!!! Coming back after 30 years will be a challenge, but if you're motivated you can still get back into the routine (my break was only six years, but it took me a few months to readjust).

I came back at 30 to do a PhD and given my wages have taken a backward step, it definitely isn't something you do to enhance career prospects unless you want an academic career.

As a man, I can't really comment on what to wear. Wear what's comfortable to echo other's remarks I guess. However, I've never figured out how women can safely cycle in a skirt (again, a male perspective)?

======= Date Modified 21 Apr 2011 14:19:49 =======
Five. I got in initially with a materials engineering project a year after my Masters, but director at the sponsoring company refused to recognise the project.

About the same time, I got a hiding in interview for a pure engineering project and withdrew my interest (I think the potential supervisor misread my skills on my CV and I was interviewed for an unsuitable position) then there was a bizarre interview where the potential supervisor said there was no real broject available (materials).

I laid off for a few years and was simultaneously interviewed for a Bioengineering project (Russell Group) and a High Temperature Materials project (New University). I got offers for both
and took up the High Temperature Materials project.

I later went to the other Uni to do a years' Bioengineering post-doc and had a stinker of a time. It at least confirmed I chose the right place and project (High Temperature Materials) for my PhD.

All I can say is keep plodding away there and ensure the project is in the area in which you want to study. You will get there eventually. However, keep in mind with funding cuts, there just that bit more competition.

Don't take something that's not quite right for you, as you may end up facing a torrid few years that may end up nothing to show for it.

Ian (alias 'Beefy')

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472280a.html

May be worth a read.

Ian (Alias Beefy)

======= Date Modified 19 Apr 2011 13:21:49 =======

This is perhaps due to the time commitments of other staff. Also, the fact this person has passed a few weeks ago will mean they'll still have fresh in their minds what is needed.



That is a big jump to be honest and a little further away than I would be comfortable with. However, time is pressing and if the issue is lack of criticality then this at least they should be able to help you with that. You basically have to understand the writing style required for critical review and that's half the battle over.



Quite probably, as you're doing the viva from scratch. Do you want the PhD? Verify this.



It's not as difficult as you think.

For example, the below is not critical:

Person A reported that X resulted in Y, however, Person B reported that X resulted in Z.

However, this is critical:

Person A reported that X resulted in Y, however, this was contradicted by Person B who reported that X resulted in Z. The difference in result may be attributable to Person A obtaining their data from a population and under conditions. This may have resulted in a more skewed set of data because , thus person A's data should be treat with caution.

Sorry if this sounds too like 'Science', however, that's my background (I've tried to be as generic as possible).



Perhaps different places have different regulations, however, I had internal plus external examiners, plus my main director of studies. I thought a chair and panel were more an American approach, to be honest.



I'll make no bones about it, it's going to be tough. However, do you waste another couple of months getting the ideal supervisors (possibly ending up with one of your originals - I'd have kept one of the old ones - the second supervisor) or do you push on and give yourself as much time as possible to redo your thesis?

I don't think you have time to waste.

I'll be honest, you may still end up with the MPhil. However, you've a second chance and if you knuckle down to add that critical element, you may give yourself a fighting chance.

Ian (alias 'Beefy')

'Lack of critical part in thesis' to me means you've failed to make your literature review a critical assessment of the other published data relevant to your work. I was criticised for this by my second supervisor whilst writing up my literature review. I thus spent about a month getting this right.

At a guess, you've probably simply reported back other people's findings during your literature review. This is sufficient for an MPhil, but not a PhD. You not only need to report on findings, but criticise what you perceive to be weaknesses in their work and also point out contradictions with other authors. There may also be differences between earlier and later literature (sometimes from the same author) that have not been explained. These issues you need to address in your literature review and try to offer a plausible explanation, using the evidence available.

Also, your own data may contradict others earlier or contemporary findings and in your later discussion these should also be addressed in a similar manner.

If the supervision team's main purpose is to assess whether or not you have the level of criticality right, it may not be necessary for them to be working directly in your dicispline. They may need only to have sufficient relevent background to make this assessment. If this is the case, turning your literature review and (lesserly) discussion (probably only the odd sentence or paragraph in the dicussion concerning contradictions between your own results and literature) into a critical appraisal may not be that onerous.

If the new supervision team do have sufficient relevant background to make an assessment on critical assessment, I'd try to work with them to put this critical element in. It's poor your original Director of Studies did not have a PhD and thus might not have understood 'critical assessment' (probably one reason your appeal succeeded). With both your new supervisors having at least PhD, they will both know what this means and you should be okay.

You've eight months left and I still think you've sufficient time to sort this. However, it's a push. You could waste another couple of months getting the ideal supervision team and not have sufficient time to get your thesis right. Or you could spend the next eight months working with the new team to put this element of critical assessment in. It's a gamble, but given the time you have left I'd go for option two.

It's underway now folks, if you want to take part.

The above has a link to this.

http://www.vitae.ac.uk/cms/files/UKGRAD-WDPD-Trends-Sep-2007.pdf

Might be worth a read.