Are you in the UK? If so, yes, in the history field it is normal to do a Masters first before a PhD, and most universities expect that. To be honest you may also need to do this anyway, partly because of tha mount of time since your first degree, partly to teach you essential research skills.

Masters degrees in humanities have traditionally been self-funded, but some universities are now offering 1+3 funded options, where a Masters + 3-year PhD are both funded. So do look out there.

I self-funded my own part-time history Masters and won funding from AHRC for my part-time PhD. If applying for funding you will find it is very competitive in humanities. Not so sure about social sciences. But in humanities in my PhD year only 1 in 5 of AHRC applicants was successful.

Congratulations :)

Oh and don't expect to get your degree result until December or thereabouts, which probably means that the graduation will happen the following summer. At least that's what happened to me.

You'll need the money for the summer rent.

Taught Masters courses in the UK are 12-month things, if studied full-time. You spend the first 8/9 months or so attending lectures and doing the taught bit. Then you spend the rest of the year - basically the summer months - researching and writing your dissertation.

The viva dreams were the worst for me. But then PhD dreams can continue even after you've successfully passed, and graduated.

I had a dream a few months ago - nearly a year after my successful viva - that my PhD had been revoked. Aaarrrrggghh! Very traumatic dream that was. Do not want to have again!

Are you getting professional help to cope with the waiting stress? Have you spoken to the university counsellors?

It does sound as though all you can do is wait. No magic wand can be waved to make your viva happen immediately. So you have to be patient. I know you've been waiting a long time, but is it really so hard to wait that bit longer? You are looking for work at the same time, so are doing something productive in that vein.

Walking away might seem easy, but that really would be the end of your PhD. It's only by sticking it out to the end that you have a chance of succeeding. If you walk away you're guaranteed to fail. Do you want that?

If you haven't seen your university counsellors yet please arrange to do so ASAP. Phone them tomorrow. That's a very productive thing to do, and they may help you with coping strategies. And university counselling is free and - most importantly - confidential.

======= Date Modified 05 Apr 2011 20:17:58 =======
When I was a full-time student I viewed my PhD as a 9-5 job, so stuck to those hours. I'd get into work about 8.15, to get parked, then would surf the Internet (early days of it!) for a while before 9, then get started properly. Come 5pm I would leave.

My husband took the same approach when he started (and completed) a full-time PhD too.

Now of course later as a part-time PhD student (and successfully completed) I was, for much of the time, managing on no more than 5 hours total a week. Not to be recommended. But I don't believe people need to put in vast amounts of hours. A lot can be wasted procrastinating. A lot can be achieved in much less time.

Definitely check the regulations at your uni. Mine specified exactly where the acknowledgements should go: near the front, after the table of contents/figures, before the official uni declaration/statement which had to be signed by me and supervisor.

Well I was supposed to hear a final decision on one of mine by end of last week. Nope. Still waiting.

Oh and for how you came to the conclusion just add more details of the methodology and evidence that you used. This can be done quite succinctly, as you suggest, or in more detail, if appropriate.

I wouldn't write "Based on years of study". I would just write something much shorter. Don't feel you need to justify yourself. Just be assertive.

Writing something along the lines of you are trying to encourage discussion is fine. Since that's what you're doing. It doesn't undermine what you have written at all.

One of my pieces currently in review is very similar to yours. It's based largely on my doctoral research (completed), but is a wider discussion piece. Quite contentious in places. Primarily aimed to stir things up, and promote further new relevant research. I was quite assertive though. And you do not need to justify yourself.

I'd be happy to look through your paper and come up with more specific advice on being assertive / rewording. If you want to do that PM me and we'll exchange email addresses etc.

I wouldn't do that myself. It could still go all wrong. I'd put down on the CV that I had passed my viva subject to (minor or whatever) corrections. But I wouldn't be swayed by what the internal does.

I've written numerous one author papers. As a historian it's normal within my field. I have 2 published, 3 in review, and 3 more in progress at the moment.

They are all written in the passive third person. No "I" at all. It is possible to write assertively without using "my" or "I". And you can write very very assertively. I've been told off in the past by my supervisor for writing too dismissively of other people's research in the literature review part of one of my papers ;-)

Use words like "This technique was chosen in this case because ..." and stuff like that. But only write in the first person if you are sure that is normal in your field. And "Based on my experience I think" sounds weak. Someone could read it and doubt your decision making. Make it stronger.

I agree it's when the corrections have been signed off and approved. Everything after then is just a formality, and should flow smoothly, in its own time, which can vary depending on timetables for relevant uni meetings, graduation etc.

Before the corrections have been approved things could still go very wrong. The student could fail to do the corrections satisfactorily within the required timescale. Once approved, yay :)

I don't suppose you got his name? If so I would recommend writing to complain. Actually writing to complain anyway might be a good idea.

I had a remarkably similar experience once with a member of staff in the National Archives of Scotland. He was going totally out of his way to be rude and obstructive to me, talking behind my back and much worse. I was a teenager at the time, and very upset by it. But I wrote to complain. I got an apology in writing from the NAS, and the staff member concerned was moved away to behind the scenes, no longer to deal with members of the public. Result.