======= Date Modified 17 Feb 2009 19:30:40 =======
Eska - when we go on the job market being compared with our peers is precisely what will happen, so I think you're being a bit unrealistic, as surely if we don't know what others have done etc then we're going to get a very nasty shock in a horribly competitive market if we can't compete? And the only way of knowing whether we have enough to stand a chance is to compare ourselves with our peers who managed to get jobs. I heard that in the US various top economics departments rank their PhD students who are seeking jobs and only write references for them if they apply for 'suitable' level jobs...



But I am genuinely interested by your concept of professionalism in supervision; if I've understood your posts correctly, you think that supervisors should never mention other students, and shouldn't discuss your work with their colleagues so in essence sort of work in a vacuum with you. Is that right? It's just if my very professional supervisors hadn't told me what other students of theirs had done in certain circumstances, if they hadn't suggested that I read student x's book chapter on y as it was very good, and indeed if my main supervisor hadn't asked a professor in a different field for his take on a problem that I was really struggling with and where she couldn't see a way forward either, then my PhD would have taken a lot longer and been worse. So I think I disagree with you. In fact, I don't think your model, if I've understood it correctly, would be possible at my ex-university as they have to write a report of your progress each year that gets read (as does a sample of your work) by two other staff members who then do your progress review. So there's bound to be discussion. And indeed I'd be worried if less experienced supervisors didn't seek the advice of more experienced people about any problems they and their PhD students were facing. Are you really saying all of that sort of activity is in your mind unprofressional?

I'd agree you could feel aggrieved if this was a supervision meeting, as that's meant to be about your work not other students', but from what you say it was a conversation with Masters students considering a PhD and you were there as a sample PhD student. So I can't see anything wrong in your supervisor responding to a question with an example of good practice i.e. this other student. After all, if your supervisor thought you and your experience was worthless / better hidden, then you wouldn't have been wheeled out to impress prospective students, and you know what, I bet that one of his/ her other supervisees is currently beating themself up about why you and not they are your supervisor's favourite student!
Seriously though I spent my PhD thinking I was rubbish compared to the confident, productive people who seemed to be all around me, but I got a postdoc and some of them didn't, so I suspect that many of us tend to underestimate our own work and feel inadequate. But it's interesting to see who gets jobs and who doesn't and it's not always the ones you might expect...

I'd take this meeting seriously and make sure you get an account of the meeting written up afterwards (and signed off by him), that states clearly what he thinks you need to improve on to progress with the PhD. Then you've got something that you can measure progress against whenever there's a formal review of your progress (saves unpleasant surprises further down the line). Have you got any idea why things aren't working - are there particular skills that you lack and that you could ask him for help with? A friend of mine got permission to sit in on a Masters module to help her understand something she was really struggling with, although that wasn't in the sciences, but perhaps there's similar possibilities?

If there's someone else who could supervise it in that department then there is no harm in asking them and in fact I'd ask your original choice if they could suggest anyone (in case there's been any recent appointments that you can't see on the website or someone normally known for x but currently changing track to y that would fit). But I would start looking at other universities too rather than hoping that the department will persuade someone to supervise something out of their area of expertise, which probably given your interest would not end happily. Oh and although it doesn't feel like it, that person has done you a favour by being honest. A supervisor with too many students in the humanities / social sciences is never going to be a good bet, because with the best will in the world they can only be effective supervisors for a certain number of people, and benign neglect is rarely good news in a subject that needs your work to be read very closely.

If they've followed the correct procedures for this then I suspect they are well within their rights to do this: as there are always going to be students who are not able to complete a PhD so there will be 'failure to make satisfactory progress' rules that allow them to get rid of unsatisfactory students. I'd suggest firstly going through the degree regulations to check that they have indeed followed the rules - if not complain about procedural abuse. There should also be an appeals process. I would imagine your grounds for appeal should concentrate on the fact that they've presumably passed you through progress reviews in the past and that it's rather late in the day to say now that it's unsatisfactory. It is in your best interest to follow the procedures scrupulously yourself rather than trying to get external people involved - you have to exhaust the internal complaints procedure before you can go to the external adjudicator otherwise they will reject it.

Moving university might not be that straightforward -  aside from the IPR issue you probably also need to check whether there is a minimum period of registration at the other university and whether the academic who says they'll help has the influene with the Dean to get you admitted there. On IPR there's probably a section on this in the official research student handbook. AS I understand it here the position is dependent on who was funding your research.

I'd have thought this might be a bit subject dependent. E.g. I can see this being much more problematic with a lab-based PhD than say a philosophy one. You can always suspend studies yes but the question would be how damaging it would be to the progress of the PhD and how much extra time it would then take.

Zelda - it's political science. It's a subject that produces way more PhDs than there are jobs in the UK and then because Britain is currently seen as a place where interesting research is done, there are a lot of Americans, Canadians and other Europeans applying too for every job (often people who already have academic jobs). It's difficult to compete with people who've taken 7 or 8 years to do a PhD and so had the time to publish when you've been under the ESRC 'you must finish in 4 years and preferably 3 or we will punish your department' regime...I've been lucky - I got a postdoc and am trying to publish like mad but hardly anyone that I used to see as graduate students on the conference circuit has got anything other than hourly paid teaching, and to be honest that means living on the breadline, which as most people are already in debt isn't viable for more than a year. Why I said loving research is the key to me as to why you should or shouldn't go into academia, is that although I quite enjoyed my PhD, I'm not honestly getting much job satisfaction from my research-only postdoc. I'm not convinced I like writing that much. I do enjoy teaching and working with students so I'm looking into other careers where I can do that but am not facing forty years of churning out rather pointless articles each year to meet whatever research targets are set.

I think on the whole that it's only worth going into academia if you are so fascinated by your research that you can't imagine getting job satisfaction unless you can pursue it. You have to love researching and writing otherwise the stresses that go with the job aren't worth it. Since becoming a postdoc I've been more aware of what lecturers actually have to do on a day to day basis and a lot of it is firefighting to deal with the problem of too many students who need more and more support academically and too few staff (and appallingly incompetent management). I've got a lot of respect for them but I'm not sure I really want to go through years of uncertain employment to become a lecturer (in my social science subject they reckon only 10% of PhDs get a lectuership), when it looks like a very stressful job. The only plus other than the opportunity to do research, is that it's more flexible than most jobs but if you having to work 60 hour weeks to keep vaguely on top of things then I'm not convinced flexibility is that great! So I think in answer to your question, I'm looking elsewhere. tbh it's seeing two of the younger lecturers appointed maybe 2 years ago as rising stars in the profession; they both now look ten years older, ill and exhausted and neither has been able to get much if any research done. That account MissSpacey posted just confirms what I'm seeing here (although at least the pay is better now).

Yup £14, 556 for all students regardless of nationality or residence status for the year spent at LSE plus whatever PKU charges for their year. To be fair for their less popular programmes home/eU students get a discount and only pay £9500 or so but you really have to wonder whether it's worth paying vastly more than for Oxford, Cambridge, UCL etc if it's prestige you're after, or any of the other highly rated politics depts in the country if it's the subject that is the key.

If you are a UK student, then I think they'll be looking for a first from a high ranked institution plus good internships / work experience / experience of life abroad etc. However, if you are a UK student, then the real issue with these two year programmes is affordability as unlike every other UK university they charge UK students full international fees for MA degrees. I know of nowhere that will lend you the money for these fees as they are way over the maximum of the career development loans and they attract no research council funding. Unfortunately with half of the course being abroad you cannot guarantee to cover the costs by earned income so you do need to have the money. Like an earlier poster said you have to really consider (particularly given as Phdbug admits there are some serious complaints about teaching and contact with staff there - I know a lot of resentful LSE grads...), whether the LSE fees are really manageable and worthwhile.
I find the contrast between the LSE of today and the principles of its Fabian founders quite remarkable....

I'd agree about really knowing your thesis and if possible getting someone to give you a mock viva. The other thing that might be helpful if you haven't done so already, is to research your examiners and try to find and read their most recent conference paper or publications as it might give you an idea of what aspects of your thesis they're likely to be most interested in and where any opposition might lie.

Are you currently doing an 'undergraduate Masters' programme i.e. a four year programme? And are you getting student loans / grants etc? If so, you do realise that that funding isn't available for stand-alone masters programmes? You are responsible for paying tuition fees and living costs yourself unless you get a scholarship. You could be about to make a very expensive choice, so I'd get some financial advice before you drop out.

Oh and we were told specifically that supervisor / institution were much less important - it was our own achievements not those of our universities or supervisors that mattered.

======= Date Modified 18 Sep 2008 12:09:03 =======
We had a training session on this recently. Here's what i remember:



To get shortlisted for a lectureship, the key things apparently are:

peer-reviewed publications and evidence of networking via conference presentations etc

good teaching experience

good academic history in terms of grades, scholarships, awards etc

fitting the job advert (obvious but apparently a lot of people don't use their cover letter to say how the meet the job specifications)



To get through the job talk and interview:

plans for a independent research programme for the next few years beyond the PhD

ability to make the above sound interesting to as many of the staff as possible

potential for grant-getting

knowledge about current issues in HE and teaching generally

personality - coming across as a decent and collegiate human being.



We were allowed to watch the job talks for a recent lectureship in our department and it was VERY enlightening - if you get a similar chance, go along!

Try to be realistic. The PhD is never going to be perfect - it just has to be good enough.

Learn to take criticism gracefully even if you disagree with every word - write it down, go back to it three weeks or so later and take away the helpful bits when calmer.

The incredibly intellectually arrogant 'I'm brilliant' person who starts at the same time is probably not that bright! Don't be intimidated by people who confuse speaking the jargon with real research findings.

If you're arts /social sciences as someone already said, write, write, write. It's much easier to redraft faulty earlier work than to try and write the whole lot in six months.

Don't bury your head in the sand and forget to look beyond the PhD. You need to get a job at the end of it. Find out early on what the expectations for an academic career, career in industry or whatever sounds appealing are, and try to keep a few different options open. The write-up stage is hell and all-engrossing and is NOT the time to suddenly try to do everything to make yourself employable.