You might be better off publishing your thesis as journal articles to get your name out there, as opposed to trying to rewrite it as a book, which is very different to what a thesis is.

Agreed with Marasp. You can always do a PhD part-time as well, and depending on where you work, it might get funded/you can do an industry placement PhD (not sure what they're actually called?)

Can I ask why you want to work in Academia? Have you worked in Academia before? A number of PhDs start with the intention of working in Academia, but don't actually stay (myself included) when they realise what it's actually like, and that there are other pathways for them.

Academia is not a good environment right now in relation to job prospects. You need to have the utmost flexibility in where you might end up (anywhere in the world) Post-Docs are very difficult to obtain, let alone tenure, and Academia is a resource user, not really a resource generator, meaning that you need to be able to attract funding for research, produce publications that are in highly revered journals, get your name out there in terms of conference/symposium/seminar presentations and other forms of writing, and handle teaching (some manage to just to research work if they can consistently attract the funding but many need to take on teaching duties as well, which can be draining).

Having a job in industry is really good and something that a number of PhDs (myself included, working on it) wish they had.

Definitely do a PhD if that's what you want, but think long and hard about what it means to work in Academia, and whether it's something that will fit you.

Looking back, I wish (like marasp) I had perhaps done what you are doing now, which is getting my foot on the career ladder first, and the PhD second. I'm starting to get somewhere, but that's because of networking and taking on skills-based pro bono consultancy work in social research to get my name out there.

When you start the PhD you are bound to be the little fish in the big ocean again. You feel incredibly unintelligent and don't even know where to start.

As you research and write, you obtain knowledge. It's not a process that is gained by direct correlation, rather, it's a slow process. I find that after having done the PhD (under examination) I know heaps more than I did when I started, and I don't even know how I got there! It takes time.

See how you go with some of your lab work and writing. It can take a while to settle in, and you'll have massive ups and downs with it as well.

In Australia you can't submit without having both supervisors fill out forms that indicate their permission for you to submit. So I wasn't able to submit until those forms were prepared and they felt it was ready.

I agree with Mackem's point about that comment. You have to be able to articulate your ideas in a straightforward way. If the examiner has to reread sections to gain an understanding, that's going to be a big issue. It's something I try to teach my undergraduates regarding their writing, that it has to be smooth, coherent and without interruption.

I would wait for the green light to be honest. You run the risk of having to do large revisions/be a resubmit as opposed to just adjustments/no changes.

Oh Students...they seem to forget the whole point of attending class is to learn, not to be bedazzled by flashy powerpoint!

Regarding your accent/language, that will be a barrier for both you and your students. If English is their first language and not your own, communication will be difficult. I don't have any suggestions regarding what you can do to help this other than perhaps working on pronunciation/taking vocal lessons?

Regarding your teaching style, is this for seminars, tutorials or lectures? Is it possible for you to include relevant media or video clips to help illustrate your points? I use a mixed media format for my teaching, I lecture, but I also include engaging discussions, and have numerous video clips in each lecture to demonstrate my points. Some students are visual, some are audio. Some do better with just listening, others do well with points illustrated by visual media, and others through charts and graphs. Using a combination of mixed media. Depending on your topic, even movie clips can be relevant to help illustrate your points.

That's a big question without any further information. There are plenty of universities that don't require a masters degree to get in, but it all depends on the program, the faculty, the university, your own experience etc.

You need to:
1) Determine what you want to study within computer science. I.e. what research projects do you want to undertake or what PhDs would you interview for?

2) Locate schools that have researchers who can supervise you or have PhDs you can interview for.

3) Determine the entrance requirements of those schools. Don't rule schools that provide an option to upgrade to a PhD program from a masters (that's what I did). You might start with a masters but finish with the PhD.

Agreed with TreeofLife.

Apply anyway. Experience is what counts.

Teaching experience is important, but your ability to attract grants and funding, and your publication record will be more highly regarded than teaching if applying for academic roles.

You don't need to have heaps of teaching experience; rather, just enough to demonstrate that you can teach at a tertiary level. So don't feel too bad about turning down those roles, while they can be CV builders, they also drain your energy and time. Once the marking comes in, your PhD is put on hold, especially in social science where its essays (social science here myself).

I took on one-two units per semester and have done both teaching associate and unit coordinator/lecturing roles. If you can get a mixture (so TAing, Unit Coordinating/Lecturing) that would be ideal to demonstrate that you can handle tutorial facilitation, and running an entire unit.

You want to avoid (if you can) the trap of sessional teaching, where so much time and energy is put into running units while your research is left neglected. A lot of universities are going this route, using sessionals while their tenured professors work on their research/don't teach. So don't go overboard with the teaching if you want to stay in academia. You need to develop your publication/conference/grant portfolio as well.

I agree Ian that a PhD is something we need to be proud of. But a PhD alone can't land us a job in industry if, as you said, we don't market our transferable skills correctly. We can't assume that those in industry understand what a PhD really is, or the skills involved. And there are so many ways of doing a PhD that you need to highlight the skills you gained because the recruiter isn't going to know.

I'm in the job hunt as well, and struggling to get interviews, or past the interview stage. But I'm beginning to learn that we need to be picky about our jobs and know what we want to do, instead of applying to anything and everything that we reckon we could do. And also keep in mind that some places advertise for external candidates, but have no intention of hiring them, and others, like government, have to post all jobs regardless of whether they'll hire externally or internally.

The first page of your CV should not scream education because it takes up valuable space for you to highlight your skills. You need to get the recruiter's attention in those few seconds they skim over your resume. A good summary, skills and abilities and relevant experience to the role is what's needed. Education doesn't tell them whether you can do the role in those first few seconds. Grab their attention so they will take the time to read the rest of your CV.

I don't regret for an instance doing my PhD at all. Far from it. But I'm under no illusion that the PhD can be a hindrance if we don't market ourselves accordingly or search for work where postgraduate qualifications are regarded.

As Ian has said, those who are unwilling to hire you based on your qualifications, you need to address that head on. After all, they are worried about investing their time in you should you 'find something better.' Do what you can to alleviate those fears.

I think it really depends on you as a person, and the type of PhD. I would think a science phd with lab work might be more suited to a 9-5 as you need to go to the lab, whereas a social science PhD with qualitative research, a 9-5 is not always the best route to go.

I didn't have a 9-5 routine, and when I tried it just didn't work for me. I did a qualitative sociology PhD that was a qualitative content analysis and interviews. I found that I worked best in the mornings so forced myself to get up early, but I also worked from home most of the time. The afternoons were spent doing other things, like errands, and evenings spent with my partner, or volunteer work.

Sometimes I spent weekends on my work, and other times I didn't. Sometimes I worked in the evenings during the week or on the weekend. Some days I would go up to the library to change scenery, or head into campus.

There were times where I didn't even work on the PhD, such as between end of March, 2014-Beginning of May-2014 as I was just too busy with wedding and teaching commitments. I took 4-5 weeks annual leave each year as well.

Did I get it done? Yes! It's under examination right now (no VIVA here in Australia) and was finished within the 3.5 year time frame for funding.

So don't feel pressured into a 9-5 if it doesn't work for you. Find what works for you, and it's okay if your routine changes throughout your course. For some people, the 9-5 is what got them through, for others, it's what broke them.

I think it depends on the route you go for transcription. There are professional transcription companies that will do it or you could try and go a student route.The best thing to do if you do it on your own is to transcribe the interview after you've done it, as opposed to waiting until all your interviews are recorded (my mistake lol!)

I went professional when my hands began to have some horrible swelling/very painful, and I was having some nerve damage issues (which luckily, have since left!). It cost me about 2k (Australian mind you) for 20 1-2 hour interviews.

But I don't regret spending that money because it meant I could focus on my teaching commitments/allow my hands to heal, and as the transcripts came through, I could load them into my qualitative analysis software (I used Atlas.Ti which as a student you can get at a reduced rate).

If you don't mind spending the money, go professional. But you need to check and make sure your ethics allows for you to have your interviews transcribed by someone else, otherwise you can get in a heap of trouble.

My recruitment had a variety of people. I was focusing specifically on men in Australia, but while I would get more than 50 responses to my advertisements, only 20 men actually volunteered to be interviewed.

I would think that the study would be skewed by postgraduate student input, but if the surveys actually have an option to keep track of the demographics, you write about that and can use it to your advantage.

For example, everyone who participated in my study were Anglo-Caucasian. Which wasn't my intention, but those were the men who volunteered. So in my thesis I make a point to say that it is through an anglo-celtic lens, and therefore not representative of all men in Australia. I reflect on this and use this in my limitations, as well as in my conclusion when discussing future research avenues.

No data is 'bad' data, or at least in social sciences. It's about interpretation and framing of your results.

I think the safest bet is to accept Salford, and then if you get into NYU, do a transfer. If you don't get into NYU, then you've got Salford.

But I don't think anyone here on the forum will be able to give you the best advice, you need to try and get in contact with postgraduate administrators at both schools who have a much better understanding of the legalities of the situation, which is what I think you need advice on.

This is very common here in Australia, the use of sessional staff to do teaching work at your level but not paying them full-time work.

The nature of work is changing, and its frustrating. The likelihood of getting something full time is rare, and tenure is the impossible unicorn.

I'm currently lecturing/running an entire unit on my own and working those exact same hours as you between preparing lesson plans, lecturing, assessment marking (social science so essays need heaps of feedback which take forever), consultations/emails etc. In the exact same situation, although I knew what it was going to be like going in.

While you do the teaching, those employed are conducting research, improving their own profiles while you struggle to make ends meet and find time to get publications/research studies out there.

You might want to consider industry as an option, or at least start thinking about moving into industry. I don't think this environment will change regarding contract work which almost equates to slave labour.