I've quite enjoyed my postdoc (ends this summer). It's kind of strange though when you don't have a supervisor any more. Sort of like riding a bike without stabilisers for the first time. And I feel like I'm neither one thing or another; no longer a student but not really a member of staff. I've enjoyed being able to follow up avenues that I couldn't in my PhD and got some publications out. And I got to go to some nice places for conferences.
I think the biggest shock though was finding out just how competitive the academic job market is, how overworked particularly the younger lecturers are, and how unbelievably rubbish and entitled a decent proportion of undergrad and postgrad students really are. How did I not notice that academia wasn't exactly stress-free when I was doing my PhD???? I suppose I just bought into the whole 'the PhD is the hardest thing you'll ever do' and 'academics have nice lives' myth without really thinking about it. I only hope I wasn't as much of a nightmare to supervise as some of the PhD students at this place clearly are...

I really wouldn't assume that your preferred supervisor will be able to act in reality as first supervisor if they are not on paper. Universities set maximum numbers of PhD students per person for a reason - that's all they can manage along with the rest of their workload. Also if the person's a nice individual, they probably won't want to undermine their colleague by usurping their role as main supervisor.

In the UK there's a national pay scale. Natassia's about right although senior lecturers earn a bit less, and a lot of professors are on more like 56- 60k. It's only the superstars that get the 70-80k salaries i.e. the sorts of people who universities abroad would be keen to poach. Most European countries are similar but often lecturer equivalents get paid a lot less than in the UK. In the US it varies drastically from institution to institution and from subject to subject. Some earn really well, others very badly.
But remember the pay is only good for those with fulltime permanent contracts. A scary amount of teaching is delivered by part-timers who are often on pretty awful hourly pay.

This would be a problem I think. You need at least one referee who can speak about the quality of your PhD work / teaching experience etc if you are applying for lectureships. Two very out-dated references would set off alarm bells. If you are determined not to use your supervisor, I would suggest asking either your internal or external examiner after the viva if they would act as a referee. They'd have read your thesis so could speak to your current research ability. Or do you not have a second supervisor that you could ask?

You will be incredibly lucky to get a funded MA in sociology. The ESRC doesn't fund stand-alone Masters so your only chance will be university / departmental scholarships. Check the Guardian education supplement every Tuesday but there won't be much floating around.
As for where is good: www.rae.ac.uk - check the tables for sociology.
But the MAs on offer are going to vary enormously from place to place in content, and many won't be MA Sociology, so you might want to think about what areas interest you in particular too to narrow it down. Perhaps think in terms of why you want to do a MA and where you want it to take you in career terms?

I'd go and see your supervisor, tell her exactly what this other student said and ask outright what the likely issues are to come up on this in the viva and if she can help you prepare a decent defence.
Obviously I don't know the personalities involved but I'd be a bit wary of believing this other PhD student about what was or wasn't said. It sounds from your account like the other student is deliberately trying to upset you. There was a girl who did this a lot on my PhD programme - turned out most of this so-called staff comment was made up.

Hi Angel,

I definitely think you need to try and get to see whoever is in charge of your graduate school. As you said you were ESRC funded, were you by any chance pushed to submit before you felt ready because of the ESRC deadline for their students to submit? If so, it suggests your institution may be struggling to meet ESRC completion targets, in which case your graduate school has a very strong vested interest in helping you to finish here so that they don't get penalised by the ESRC.
I also think your graduate school needs to know about the fall out between this examiner and your school. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the original case to choose this person, you are now in a position whereby the your supervisor/institute is openly at war with this person. To my mind, that makes it inappropriate for her to continue as external. As it sounds like your supervisor / institute has been pretty unprofessional, you need to make sure those in authority know what's gone on because I doubt your supervisor has admitted uninviting her etc. I think depending on your institution's rules that there may be a case for the appointment of a new external. Does your student union have an academic advice centre / person - if so I'd go there first, run the tale past them and see what they think the rules are. A rep from there might be willing to help you get an appointment with the head of the grad school without hassle and to go to the meeting with you to make sure everything is done by the book.
My final thought with the corrections demanded - you say you agree with a lot even if you hate the way it's phrased. Could you start by doing the things you agree would make for a stronger thesis? That might help you move forward.
Regarding your questions b, c, d and e - personally I'd start with trying to avoid failing. Your internal said you did well in the viva, so if you got a new external then you probably would be fine. Particularly, if you felt the thesis was stronger too. There's no harm looking at the appeals procedure because I think that prejudiced examiner or similar would be a category. Basically if you point out to the grad school that if they don't replace the external for the reviva that will be the grounds you will be appealing under and that you have the evidence to hand, namely the post-viva spat, then they'd be daft not to do something. Oh and if you're awarded an Mphil I'm pretty sure that no you don't have to cut it down and yes you could still appeal. Good luck.

OK reality check time - I would really make sure you take a step back from your anger and think rationally about this.
Firstly, you are not the group leader so you do not know all the ins and outs of the other person's situation and why they chose to give him the studentship - if though you broadcast your feelings around the group then you are more likely to damage your own future chances than those of anyone else.
Secondly, I imagine you've read the papers so you know that people are losing university jobs all over the place. Getting grants is getting harder and harder. Even if your supervisor knew that the studentships were more likely to go to people of certain backgrounds, then it was still right to encourage you to apply because nobody knows until the applications are on the table exactly how things will pan out. You might have been in with a chance. That's the way she will be thinking herself about her own grant applications. Academia is tough and you have to develop a very thick skin.
So basically you have a choice. You either start applying elsewhere to try and start in 2010 and do recognise that getting a funded PhD place, while still comparatively easy in science, is more competitive now, so you might have to face more knockbacks. Or you stay put, feel grateful that the university is still able to pay you as an RA and hope your boss can deliver on the 2011 post. If you do that, then don't foul your own nest by complaining too much, however angry you might feel now.
Sorry if this sounds unsympathetic but I've just heard two postdoc friends in genetics are losing their jobs because a grant application failed. If you want an academic science career, you need to understand that a lot of things around grants are deeply unfair simply because there's too many goo people chasing not enough money.

What a mess. Yes you could do a PhD after an MPhil but I think you'd have to make sure the two topics were different (the rules on not submitting the same work twice). But what it would look like is more tricky. I think you're going to need to keep your current supervisor on good terms with you so that he/she could write a reference explaining it wasn't a failed PhD. What does your supervisor think of the plan? If you haven't talked to him/her then do so - you never know there might be a better way to manage this. Could you, for example go part-time? The fees are sometimes a lot more manageable that way.

Are you on a 1+3 scholarship? If so the progression rules from the 1 to the +3 bit should be in the research council's handbook for studentship holders - I think you'd actually have to fail the MRes to lose it - universities aren't keen on terminating studentships because they can't reallocate the money so they lose too. You're doing the right thing talking to people - if they are aware you've got problems then they can work with you.

If you are registered as a full-time PhD student then you probably do need to think in terms of putting in the same hours as you would in a fulltime job even if it's flexible - would that be feasible? Given what you say about what you would like to be able to do, would it be possible to do it part-time and get the best of both worlds? I know a couple of parents who decided this was the best route for them, as it took any guilt about leaving early out of the equation.
You mention you have a research career in mind - so there is one other thing worth mentioning even if it's dispiriting. The joy of an academic job is its comparative flexibility, which certainly helps with childcare and other family responsibilities, but what many people don't realise is that academia is a long hours culture as people struggle to combine research, a lot of administrative work and the demands of students, who seem to expect you to be on call 24/7. The post-PhD academic job market is tough (do a search for postings by badhaircut or wjgibson) and so unfortunately employers are able to demand a lot from both job applicants and employees. Given the funding cuts that are coming, I can only see this getting worse. Yes of course it's possible for a mother to do a PhD and have a research career but make sure that both you and your family are aware that it's not an easy option.

http://www.npc.org.uk/media/press/PhDfailurerevealed

Higher than I think most people think! It looks like the full figures should be here:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2007/07_28/

For Germany try www.academics.de - they have the on-line listings of the PhD jobs advertised in die Zeit, which seems to be the most centralised system.

Fun....has the course covenor said anything anywhere about what the criteria are? If not, I think I'd make half the mark for participation e.g. how many substantive comments did each student make (unless they all had to post one comment each week or something) and half for the content. Do you have to mark them each week or just give an overall mark / set of comments? If it's weekly if you can somehow mark them on-line, you could set up a document with standard comments and cut and paste them in. I once had to mark weekly commentaries on 'what they'd learnt that week' from the course and found it very hard to come up with anything much to say, so you have my sympathy if it is weekly.

Just a thought - I'm guessing you are a professionally accredited engineer? Might it be worth trying the professional body for advice - they might have a better idea than the university careers service. Or have you looked at vitae.ac.uk ?