I think the issue here isn't even about the PhD per say. Rather, it seems (from what I've read from your post) that your wife has constantly put her career on hold for the baby and for you, and perhaps the same hasn't been offered for her?

Will a part time job work for her? Depends on whether its in something she wants to do, or is just a way to make ends meet. If the latter, it's not going to help your situation, it'll make things worse. It sounds like she's feeling neglected, and that her aspirations are not being considered on an equal level as yours are. Maybe she's unable to articulate how she feels in a productive way, so feels that relating the MA experience to what might be the PhD is how she's trying to achieve this.

What compromises have you made for her own career? Why is it that her career has to be put on hold each time/why is she the one having to make these sacrifices? What support networks have the two of you set up for each other? You mention you are in a city away from family and friends. Not the best move if you are expecting her to continue to support your needs and aspirations while hers are neglected.

At the end of the day, a good marriage and partnership is about compromise and equality, and (from what I've read, I don't have any insight into the workings of your relationship) it sounds as though its very one-sided in your favour.

My best advice to you is to sit her down, and get her to feel safe in talking to you about what she needs, and be prepared for responses that you may not like. Then you can work together to find a compromise that addresses what she needs, and is not a quick fix.

I don't have experience in the US system so I can't provide much feedback.

I know in Australia, a combination of grades & experience were considered for applications. Grades were what determined funding though.

I think in your case, you stand a good chance but my background is in social science, so perhaps in engineering your experience would be highly regarded.

Getting a PhD won't guarantee a job, and our approaches to finding work need to be drastically altered/we have to be creative in how we use the PhD and market ourselves in industry, especially when our PhDs might work against us and are not in our favour.

1) You have to figure out what you want to do before you apply for roles. You need to reflect on the aspects of your PhD research/lab experience/etc that you liked, and those you didn't like. Once you hone down, you can target your job search. versatilephd.com

2) Your CV has to be tailored to each position that you are applying for. Where is education on your CV? Is it on the first page? If so, move it to the third or later. Education is not always going to be our friends. Your CV should have a strong and brief summary, skills and underneath skills, a section for relevant experience to really highlight what you can bring to the role. Then you bring in work and volunteer experience etc. I'm not saying that this method is 100% foolproof, but it's worth a try.

3) Broaden how you conduct your job search. Networking is horrible, but essential. Informational interviews (horrible, but essential) joining linkedin groups, becoming a member of a industry organisation are all helpful. I joined an organisation, and an opportunity to do some pro-bono consultancy research work in my field popped up. Great for honing your skills and is a good CV builder.

4) Utilise an industry specific recruiter as part of your strategy. I'm currently working with a recruiter who specialises in recruitment for the market and applied social research industry, and my interest is in entry to mid level qualitative or mixed-methodology research roles that focus on social issues and public policy. Recruiters work for their clients, not you, but industry-specific ones do know what the role requires and can help you tailor your application to give you a better chance.

Were you meant to start a PhD in September? My PhD here in Australia had definite dates for application outcomes so that doesn't seem weird to me.

Look into what your transfer (not leaving) options are from Salford. You might be able to do that.

1) I don't think you'll get an MPhil, that's generally a 2 year program, you wouldn't have completed enough work in order to get that by starting in Jan and then switching in Sept. You'd have to have had written 30,000 words (depending on your discipline), have had it examined and returned with No Changes by then. That's not possible in only 9 months, as it can take 3-9 months for examination depending on the examiners).

2) You might, I don't know. You need to get in contact with the school to find out what your obligations are regarding funding.

3) You might, again you probably should have gotten in contact with the postgraduate administrator for your faculty/school/department before you applied to the NYU program. Doing so now could cause more problems for you as they are your main contact for applications.

4) All depends on how you handle it. Lots of students transfer schools, you might want to see if anyone has done so and what their experience was?

There are no standardize tests that I am aware of for entrance into a PhD program in Australia and they may not accept standardize test results to boost your grades.

Research experience/publications (if you have any) teaching experience etc will be useful for getting into the program, from what you've written I don't think you'll have too much trouble getting into a PhD if based on research experience/employment.

Funding; however, is only awarded to international applicants that have demonstrated a First Class Honours/H1/HD average and is very competitive (other forms of funding such as government are reserved for locals).

In Australia, you don't necessarily have to have done a masters to get into a PhD program. I applied for a Masters by Research and then upgraded to the PhD. So you could do that. However, having not completed at Masters you enrolled in will go against you, it's a bit of a red flag.

http://www.postgraduateforum.com/thread-36156/ <--I commented here for you on the process for applying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_Australia You will need to be in the top percentile for the school you apply for (I've attached the grading scheme here) to be considered.

I'll put it this way, I graduated from my undergraduate degree with a 92% average in my major, and an 89% overall. I've just finished my PhD at Monash. I only just got full funding, and by that I mean that the faculty of arts (FAIPRS) provided my tuition until I was granted tuition from MIGR. I had to keep applying each scholarship round to the MIGR until I was granted funding from them as a condition of my FAIPRS award. I did get the MGS which was really helpful, but you are not allowed to use it to pay tuition. So while you might be more likely to get a living stipend, it's the tuition scholarship that will be the most competitive and difficult to get.

Coming from Canada, I didn't have to provide any SAT or GRE results, and I don't think you need to for an Australian PhD anyways because in Australia, they don't have equivalent exams that you need to take.

When I applied (back in 2010) I also applied for international scholarships, so my application had to be really competitive. I had to demonstrate that I had substantial research experience (not coursework). I also applied for the MA by research only, but upgraded to the PhD.

Before you can even apply (depending on the school) you have to secure two supervisors who are willing to supervise your study. So you need to not only research the schools you'd like to attend, but also the research interests of faculty and get in touch with them about your research idea. This is important because your application may be rejected as the university doesn't assign a supervisor for you based on what you'd like to research, it's up to you to determine that. Sometimes staff aren't available (mat leave, study leave etc) but might be helpful in directing you to others who are. Funding is also awarded based on faculty, I had to be a sociology PhD (even though I came from an anthropology background) because both my supervisors were sociology. Otherwise, I wouldn't get the funding.

My application consisted of:

All evidence of university scholarships and/or research scholarships, both those taken up and those offered at other universities
All evidence of awards/honours
Tertiary Transcripts AND secondary school transcripts, including awards in secondary school
Letters of Recommendation
Letters of Recommendation from employment/volunteer work in a research capacity
Copy of my publications/research reports
Copy of my honours thesis (you'll probably need to provide a copy of your masters as well).
A document that outlined all the research components of all undergraduate courses that I had taken
Evidence of having worked in a research capacity (both paid and volunteer roles)
Research Proposal (word length varied)
Conference/teaching experience
Evidence of research experience

I wish I could offer more advice but being in an Australian system (which my PhD had no courses/was purely research and no VIVA or qualifying exams) I don't know whether what I can say will be helpful.

I'm surprised you don't have a second supervisor, here in Australia we have to have two, so if one is away the other will be around. This system has worked well from my experience.

I found that the closer I got to submission, the less I heard from my supervisors. It was like I was being 'weaned off' so to speak.

I don't know about the PhD Chair because supervisors are more than just supervisors, they are research academics and have research to conduct, sabbaticals or study leave to go on etc, they aren't going to put their own careers on hold for yours, or lose out on opportunities.

Speak with the advisor, discuss your concerns regarding what can be done, but be prepared for a backlash. Academia is no stranger to politics.

Try not to let it get to you. These supervisors are very experienced (generally!) and have a good working knowledge of what it is your thesis needs. They help you shape the project and learn how to do so.

Academics don't generally do the compliment sandwich. They'll get straight to the point, words are time and it's just easier to write out what needs changing. At a PhD level, it is expected that you can take their suggestions and incorporate them at a detached level, not feel disheartened (though a difficult feat in itself!).

Is your stuff good enough? No. It won't be for at least three years (every PhD goes through that), there will be multiple revisions, changes, more revisions. They'll want one thing at one meeting and change their mind at the next (as one of my supervisors used to say "forget what I said last meeting"). Prepare yourself for this, this is what academia is like. Getting comments back on journal articles will be worse. The amount of revisions you might have to do to just get an article published can be astronomical.

You are a PhD, which means you are still a student, you are still learning. You will be kept at a much higher standard than an undergraduate or a masters. They aren't trying to bring you down, they are trying to help you become a better critical thinker and a better writer, and the best way to do that is to push/challenge you.

You sound exactly like I have been the past few months coming up to my PhD submission (no viva here in Australia). One day I'd be fine, happy, and the next prone to depression, lifelessness, frustration. Some days even the thought of unpacking the groceries was too much to handle.

The final year of the PhD is daunting for a variety of reasons. For some, it's the question of whether they'll make it in time/actually finish. For others like myself, it was the fear of the 'what now,' the uncertainty of the next step. For everyone, it's always the question of "will I pass or have to make massive revisions?" prolonging the time-frame.

I don't have any tips to get through it, other then, get through it. It's a step at a time sorta deal, you take it as it comes. Meditation might work, but I think you might want to reflect on what it is exactly about this final year that's sending you in distress.

Is it because once you finish, you'll no longer be a student? There is a comfort in being one, the transition is tough.

Have your supervisors started pulling back/weaning you off? I found that the closer to submission, the less interaction I had with my supervisors. The last meeting I had with the both of them was in March, and I submitted just the start of September. They didn't feel the need to have meetings because they felt I was doing well, but for me it was a bit of a 'wow, I'm moving forward now, they'll no longer be those constants in my life as they were before" which was actually quite sad.

Is it because you're not sure of what your next move is after submission? (My current situation)

Is it because you're not sure whether you'll get thesis finished, or are you unsure about whether you've wasted 4 years on it? (A thought that was always going through my head).

If you really think that the PhD is not for you, you shouldn't continue. There are the PhD blues, and then there are the "Holy Shit, This is just not right for me." You are already feeling this at the end of your first year, can you imagine how you might feel down the road?

There will always be moments when the literature you read bores you, and you might find that as you get more into it, your interest will grow. I know for myself that my own interest grew as I continued, but at the beginning I was unsure/found my interest a bit lacking.

Is there an option for you to continue lab work, or to take on a Research Assistant or Lab Tech role while you figure out your career change? I would look into that to keep you going while you determine how to get into that career you want.

It's okay to start a PhD and realise it's not for you. There is no shame in trying and realising that you might be better off doing something else.

As someone who does have some experience outside of university regarding RA work, I will say that RA roles are difficult to get, are highly competitive and generally, those who have applied with RA work experience will most likely be picked over you. I don't know what it is like in the UK, but here in Australia RA roles are considered Level A academics.

Do you have any publications, any conference/seminar experience, any student placements conducting research, any paid or unpaid lab experience?

I'm currently interviewing for RA/RT positions in both industry and academia after having just submitted my PhD for examination. I lost out to another candidate despite being told that I interviewed very well/very impressed with my application and professionalism because that candidate had more experience than I did. and I had experience in doing all the stuff required in the role, but just not enough.

I've been told for industry roles that while I have the qualifications and the skills, I lack the experience of industry (i.e. business/client) that would make me competitive, so I'm currently working on how to close that gap/using other means of getting work (informational interviewing, networking etc).

Apply for them and see what happens, but considering the academic environment, you'll be going up against PhDs who can't get postdocs/tenure and may have more RA experience than you, or graduates with internship experience that will be considered more competitive (and paid less) than you. Have a look at internships, traineeship programs, get in contact with Alumni from your university, go to the career counselling at your uni and look into recruitment agencies.

Once it's been reviewed by an editor, it will get sent to two subject experts in your field for review. This process can a very long time, from three months to six months and in some cases, a year.

This is because two subject experts need to be available/accept the task of reviewing, and this process of locating reviewers that are available/have the expertise needed can take a while. Then it needs to be reviewed, which can also take awhile, depending on the reviewer's time. Reviewers aren't paid for this work, and in most cases journal editors aren't either, so there is no monetary gain for them to get these reviews done as fast as possible, as it's a volunteer/prestige thing that builds up a CV. Subject experts are generally quite busy and may not have the time to review your article.

Sometimes, reviewers are picked, read the article, then choose not to review it. So the process begins all over again of finding someone, which can lengthen the process. Sometimes, your supervisor or someone you know is chosen, and they may reject the offer of reviewing as its a conflict of interest. For example, a paper I had submitted was sent to my thesis supervisor for review, he had to reject it because 1), he had already read it/offered suggestions for improvement meaning that it would not be a blind review, and 2) he was my supervisor.

That paper from submission at the end of July 2013 was not given the green light for acceptance until January 2014 for publication in the May 2014 issue. So be prepared to wait a long time and not have heaps of time to do your revisions if accepted! You may also have to do a second set of revisions.

Good luck!

Having just submitted my PhD for examination in sociology that is a combination of qualitative content analysis/qualitative interviews (no Viva in Australia) I can say that you may not have given yourself enough time for edits. While you can definitely get a first draft ready by July, the chance of being able to submit two months later can be really difficult, depending on:

1) How long it takes for your supervisor(s) to read the first draft
2) How long it'll take to make the revisions
3) How long it'll take for your supervisor(s) to review the second draft
4) How long it'll take to make the those revisions...etc.
5) How many cycles of that you might go through before approval for submission/printing.

I submitted my first full draft in early February, 2014. My supervisors had it ready by the end of March. The second draft was June (but only because I got married in April/heaps of marking/teaching to do as semesters here run from March to November). I didn't get that draft back until mid July, in which further revisions were needed.

My third draft was sent through at the end of July, and handed back with minimal issues (couple of small things) to fix and then approved for printing. I didn't get that draft back until mid-august.

So that was 6 months between first draft ready and final draft printed for submission.

I'm definitely not trying to bring you down as it's awesome that you've come as far as you have! I'm just letting you know that there are numerous things that can come up, and while two months might seem like more than enough time, the reality is that it's actually out of your control when you are waiting for revisions/comments. It can take your supervisors much longer than anticipated, and the revisions might be major or minor.

So as Barramack has suggested, give yourself extra time or try to aim for an earlier first draft date?