Hi Anon,

Your feelings, while very natural when we feel we get close to someone, are also not appropriate. I think your counsellor refusing to see you picked up on this, perhaps using the 'busy service' as a way to let you down gently.

I recommend against emailing for the sake of closure. You cannot seek closure from someone else, you have to seek closure on your own for it to be truly effective. You cannot expect her to give you closure, and while you think you might feel better after emailing her, what this might only do is exacerbate your need to see her even more, and keep you 'hooked' on how you feel.

As I've said before, a counsellor is not a professional psychologist or psychiatrist. While traumatic events were brought up, they do not have the training for long term treatment. You really should see your GP and get a proper referral to someone who is trained appropriately, and who can offer long-term therapy. The school counselling is only meant to be a stop-gap, something to keep you going, or to refer you. You should have been referred to a proper psychologist or psychiatrist. Talking about traumatic issues will make you feel worse before you begin to feel better, and I would really urge you to think about a long-term option.

I did psychology for an eating disorder during my PhD, I now see a nutritionist once I finally felt ready to. But that could not have happened with the 2+ years of psychology treatment.

Contact whoever is listed as the contact inquiry person on the job advertisement. If it's the chair, then contact them. If it's not, I'd be hesitant only in that it might come across as you not being able to follow position description instructions if they've listed a specific person. One thing though is to see whether the listed person is an HR person, or someone else involved with the project. Ideally, they should list someone to tell you specifics about the position itself (i.e. a member of the department) and an HR person about how to apply.

Don't tell them you are applying, say that you are thinking about applying and would like to know more about the role. Have a couple of preliminary questions prepared about the role, i.e. what research background are they looking for, etc. Saying "Hey I'm applying" could come across as you requesting favour...whereas saying "Hey, I'm thinking about applying" comes across more as a general inquiry.

I don't know whether this will have any impact on your application but it could. For example, in May I was sent a job that a number of people thought I'd be interested in. I emailed the inquiry person asking if they'd be open to a brief phone call about the position. They were, so I called them and we had a brief chat. I asked about the project the job was focused on, the kind of research background they were looking for, etc. They asked me a couple of questions about my background.

After that chat, I applied for the position (and got a former mentor to review my application prior to submission, I would recommend doing this!). I landed an interview, and was offered the job two business days after that, which I start in two weeks :)

Hi Thesis_issues,

Every university will have a different procedure. Ideally you should have a postgraduate/graduate administrator of some sort either in your department/school and/or faculty who should be able to direct you. At my university corrections are resubmitted to the institute of graduate research, which is a centralised graduate centre that handles all graduate stuff regardless of discipline (STEM, Arts etc). They then send the corrections out to examiners if examiners require them, and set a deadline for the examiners.

Not having friends having done a PhD isn't an excuse for not familiarising yourself with your university's practices, becuase each university will have a different practice regarding PhD correction submissions. So, it wouldn't even matter if you had friends who did a PhD unless they did a PhD at your university and perhaps in your department if you do not have a centralised system. I would recommend getting in contact with your graduate school centre if you have one, or the equivalent to find out the next steps. There should also be perhaps a website or webpage that outlines the process, although not every university does this.

As for deadline, again it really depends as to whether your university will set a deadline. That deadline you had was most likely only to submit your corrections, it does not include your examiners' review. They will probably be given anywhere from a month to 6 months to review, and again, it depends as to whether your university follows up, sets the deadline themselves etc. That review time may or may not take into account that you submitted early.

Hi Wowzers,

C) (Something else) which is a combination of a) and b).

When I did my thesis, I had probably a couple of revisions of each chapter (so maybe gained anywhere from 1-4 sets of feedback) and then had about 2-3 revisions of the final draft thesis as a whole. However, while one chapter was undergoing feedback which could take a few weeks, I continued to work on other chapters and drafting journal articles. So I was never 'stuck' on one chapter and always had something going out for feedback and review.

Is this a lot of work? Absolutely. But my end results were fantastic because revision is one of the most important things you'll need to learn how to do effectively.

3) Listen to your supervisors. I know many have had horrible supervisions on this forum, but many of us have also had amazing supervision. I had a great relationship with both my supervisors because I took on their feedback, I let them help me shape my thesis instead of arguing against every piece of feedback. You have to be willing to let them help you shape your research, and be prepared for your research to change as it develops and grows.

4) Be prepared to be INDEPENDANT. This is something I've noticed. I was a very independent researcher and did well. I didn't rely on my supervisors to hold my hand. I took initiative for my own project. I handed in drafts on-time. When I went away I did the work that I thought was correct, I asked questions when needed but didn't overwhelm with emails etc. I did not meet with my supervisors every week or every two weeks. In fact, there were times where a few months would go by before I met with them. But I didn’t sit around waiting for them to tell me what to do. They gave me some basic guidance, and I went and developed it.

5) Get your work done. Aim to get chapters done by particular dates and do this. Do not spend a heap of time on one chapter. You can go back and revise, and you should. There’s another post floating around here that says you should only get one set of feedback and then revise at the end. Yes and no. I had revisions on chapters (probably completed 5-6 versions) and then had about 2-3 revisions of the final piece of work. Is this a lot of work? Yes. Is this necessary? Absolutely. Revision is one of the most important things you’ll learn in the PhD. You’ll be constantly revising your ideas post-PhD should you continue in academia. Journal articles, grants, research projects, etc. All of these will undergo a heap of revisions.

Hi BJS

My advice is a little different from Mr Doctor. I think it's important to highlight that not every path through the PhD suits everyone.

For example, the statement that PhD should be your main focus at all times. This is not always the case. I completed my PhD within my time-frame, I even had a few months to spare for editing and cleaning up before submission. But I also didn't focus on my PhD all the time. In fact, I had periods of a month or two each year where I didn't work on the PhD at all to get journal articles written and submitted, or other things that came up (such as getting married!) and this doesn't include taking my allowed annual leave of 4 weeks each year.

What you need to do is find a rhythm that works for you. The PhD as a 9-5 doesn't work for everyone, it certainly didn't for me. I probably didn't put in as many hours as I often read others have, and yet I got through with exceptional results, am in a current full-time contract teaching and research position which I landed before I had even handed in my PhD minor corrections (which were very minor) and will soon be moving to a research only position in a research institute that I've had my eye on for some time now.

1) Plan your time wisely. Do you write better in the morning, afternoon or evening? Plan your PhD to coincide with the best time for writing. For me, it was early morning. I was getting up at 6am and worked from home a lot. By 10am when I took a break to walk the dogs, I had heaps written.

2) Don't over commit with everything. Depending on your field, conferences are not always the best use of your time despite being touted as such. They are great for networking for sure, but they take up time and funds. Limit your teaching duties.

Hi everyone,

Having done a PhD in Australia I can support Up1234's comment. We don't do a Viva or have the option to 'defend' our thesis orally after submission. When we are ready to submit, the thesis goes out to two external examiners, we wait, and the results come back. The examiners do not have to agree with each other, in fact I think they aren't even suppose to be in contact with each other. This is why one examiner can suggest one result, while another can have a vastly different opinion. In some cases, this means the thesis goes to adjudication where a third examiner comes in.

While a pass with minor corrections and an R&R do seem like massively different decisions that might warrant adjudication, it appears that the committee is not regarding it as such.

Up1234, your supervisor and/or committee should be working with you to provide a detailed list of the corrections you need to make. While I didn't have an R&R, I had a pass minor corrections from one examiner, and a pass no changes from the other. My one examiner who suggested the pass minor corrections didn't provide much of anything like yours. We had to 'decipher' the comments. An R&R is supposed to provide a detailed list of changes needed. Seeing as how that hasn't happened, the committee or head of graduate study in your school/department should be providing you some direction as to what revisions and corrections need to be made.

Considering that you have such a massive difference in results, I wonder whether adjudication is needed. Can I ask the status of your two examiners? This might seem silly, but generally, an examiner who is a professor in Australia will have more weight in the examination decision than someone who is just a lecturer.

Hi Lenna,

Where abouts are you located? I ask because this is actually dependent on the country you're in.

I did a PhD straight from an honours bachelor degree. However, I did my undergrad in Canada where I am from, but did my PhD in Australia.

I found out the other day from a senior colleague that in Australia, it is expected that you go straight into a PhD program from an honours degree (and the honours year is considered a separate year to your degree, whereas in Canada, my honours year was part of an overall 4 year program). If you fail to get into a PhD program straight from your honours, you get a Masters which is seen as a 'back door' to the PhD program.

I know, it's a bit mental isn't it? A masters here is 'proof' that you didn't do well in your honours year, and many students who choose to do a masters are strongly encouraged to upgrade to the PhD program (which is what I did, because coming from Canada, I applied for a Masters by Research thinking I had to do a masters first, but upgraded immediately to the PhD program). But this is not the same mentality that you'll find in North America.

Has it impacted me? Yes and no. Despite not doing a masters and feeling behind, that doesn't mean I am behind. I have a (fixed-term contract) faculty position as an assistant lecturer at my institution post PhD graduation, have managed to so far grab three research grants in my first year here, presenting at a conference in October and have three publications under review, one which came back as a very encouraging revise and resubmit (which for this particular journal is a good outcome).

I still think, however, that doing a masters first is better for you in terms of getting you more situated within academia, and gives you more time to publish work. But going straight into a PhD program is not necessarily a disadvantage.

Hi Kathryn,

First, I just wanted you to know that it's okay to feel the way you are feeling. Frustrated, angry, resentful. This is very common for someone who has spent a good chunk of their time on study to find themselves getting nowhere in the Academic sphere, and struggling in landing work in industry.

As others have said, Academia is very much characterised by flexibility, I.E. moving to different parts of the world just to land a position. It's horrible and not conducive to having a family or the likes. However, Academia has historically been a man's world, where families would follow the breadwinner, and despite radical shifts in our social structures, this mentality has continued as Academia becomes more globalised with the rest of the world.

I think what would be helpful for you is sitting yourself down and really figuring out what you want, as others have suggested. I know that it's difficult to be personable in interviews, trust me I'm quite introverted myself, but sometimes we have to be able to put on a good show just to get ourselves through the door. I do think that perhaps a lack of enthusiasm for the role is coming through in your interviews, stemming from a belief that you just need a job and anything will do. Employers aren't looking for that, they want someone who actually wants the job and to be part of the company.

Now my partner works in IT and started in basic help desk, but has since moved on to systems administration and more recently, forensic IT work which is very interesting! He doesn't have a PhD, he doesn't even have a university or college qualification, but he's worked hard, makes more money than I do as an assistant lecturer in academia, and has done well for himself.

I would recommend checking out https://versatilephd.com/ to help you locate your industry more specifically.

I would also recommend, as others have suggested, shifting your mindset.

Also, you mentioned that a publisher was interested in your work.

Did they approach you? Make sure they are reputable :) I had a publisher approach me just after my thesis was publish in the library depository but they were a predatory one (Lambert).

MrDoctor, some more questions to consider when making your decision:

1) Teaching

-Is this teaching only facilitating tutorials, or have you been given the opportunity to undertake unit coordination/development/lecturing?

-Will this teaching situate you in the department, or is this really only 'sessional' work? (i.e. will you effectively be 'invisible')

-How many students will you be responsible for, and what will your marking duties and prep duties look like?

-How many extra hours have you not anticipated?

While teaching might be offered as a 'part-time' role, depending on what you are doing, and the demands of your students, this can easily turn into a full time job. Teaching takes up so much time and energy, and that 'illusion' of part time may only be that. When I was sessional teaching last year, I was unit coordinating a unit of 100 students, and had an additional 60-80 in sociology tutorials. I only taught for two hours on Thursdays and 3 hours on Fridays, but the hours soon added up!

2) Admin

-What kind of admin is this?
-Is this research coordination, research and business development, grant officer, etc?

A number of 'admin' roles are actually professional in nature, but categorised as admin, especially in a university setting. They can give you a strong set of skills that can be usable both in an academic and non-academic setting. I know a number of PhDs who left academia to pursue 'admin' but still collaborate on research projects with others. Going into admin doesn't mean you'll lose your placehold in academia, in fact it can be really beneficial depending on the role.

You will also have a set schedule, and other duties can be fitted around that. Teaching, while attempting a fixed schedule, may not be, and it is very easy to get sucked into teaching.

I don't think you can go wrong with either position, and I disagree that going the admin route will barre you from Academia.

I think both options offer merit and need to be considered quite carefully.

Hi everyone,

I have a job interview next week for a research-only position in a specialist research institute for a major project. This is for a social sciences role.

I've just been given the time and the panel (5 panel members!) and as a result feel a bit more terrified that I had been when I thought it would be 3. However, I know 5 can be a common number. I do feel lucky that I received an early morning time.

There are no instructions to prepare a presentation as some interviews require, though I will be double checking with the recruiter tomorrow when my voice stops cracking (sick with bronchitis atm!).

I'm preparing:

-answers to each position description task
-major points to remember for the research institute and what it does/its major funding
-major points for the university it's housed with/strategic goals of the uni
-major points for each panel member (4 of them as the last one is the HR manager), in particular their recent work, achievements etc
-Summary of my research area including methodology etc (as points)
-answers to commonly asked questions (i.e. where do you see yourself in x years, etc?)
-how I think the project could go <--I have some details about the project due to 1) being forwarded the email from my mentors/supervisors about the role from one of the panel members and 2) by having called the contact person to inquire about the role and the project


Plus:

Copies of my CV, journal articles, works under review, etc

Does anyone have any tips for Academic interviews?

Hi JStanely,

When I was preparing an application for an academic role, a former mentor reviewed my application for me prior to submitting and sent through a copy of their CV for me to have a look and emulate. This was successful, I have an interview in two weeks time :)

One of the things they did was that they listed those non-academic jobs in this way:

Transferable Skills from Past Employment

The Job (either vague, such as Retail, or specific, such as Swimming Instructor): set of skills learned

Summary of the role and key highlights.


So for Example:

Professional arts work: developed communication and teamwork skills; provided extensive event and project-management experience.

Summary of what they did which included things like key highlights from the role.


They listed this near the end of their CV, after relevant employment history and before professional service. It depends on how you're setting your CV up, the way they had it that I followed was:

1st Page: Contact info & current role, awards, qualifications

Then subsequently in this order (but keep in mind this could be discipline specific etc, do what works for you!)

Research Projects

Publications etc

-As a new academic, I included refereed, then under review, then works-in-progress, then reports, then conference papers, but the order will depend on your discipline. I don't have any books/chapters/reviews yet. I know that there is some debate as to whether to include stuff you're working on. However, as a very new academic having only graduated in May 2015, having works-in-progress demonstrates that I'm working on something. It's not viable once you get going and leave the Early Career stage, but it can show that you are working on stuff immediately post-PhD.

Grants

Teaching & Supervisions

Media/Outreach

Relevant Employment History

Transferable Skills from past employment

Professional service

Professional Development

Referees (I put my referees in a separate document).

I would be careful with dismissing your situation/inability to present material as an aspect of your introverted personality, as it comes across somewhat as an excuse for not preparing which I know is not what you intended.

There are plenty of introverts who actually do very well with public speaking/performing/presenting material, it's when they leave the stage and have to network with others that it becomes a struggle.

One of the important skills with academia is being able to effectively present your research and convince your audience its worth while, both on paper and in verbal format.

Did you present at any conferences or university/department symposiums? Do you do any teaching? These could all help you develop your presentation skills.

I would also recommend perhaps locating a Toastmasters Club or similar to help you overcome your fear of public speaking, which is what I think what happened.

This might seem like a silly question BUT

I used to get really scared about killing the zombies/mummies in the Legend of Zelda series (to the point that I made my brother kill em for me). LOL

Does that count...?