Hi MountainSpring,

Funding for both PhDs lasts between 3.5 and 4 years. The money has already been put aside in a DTP, there is no possibility of it running out prematurely.

The way the departments acts isn't so much in a "lab" as such. It's one of the leading centres for my department of study in Europe, and around 30 new funded PhD students are taken on each year, all working on different projects.

In terms of fitting in; I don't know why I haven't included this before, but with the supervisor I am having doubts about, I am actually currently working with him on my undergraduate project. I get on with him really quite well, it's just that he's a lot less established than the other one. I don't know how much that matters regarding the success of the PhD, opportunity to publish papers etc. (Whether that's more down to myself, or if the supervisor plays a significant role).

The other one has also taught me for several modules already, and I have had a good amount of contact with him.

Thanks for everyone's responses!

Socialpolitik and Satchi, you both make good points about the subject being very important. That will probably be the deciding factor!

HazyJane and Eds, I understand that viewpoint, and heard someone say something similar a few weeks ago. I looked into it a bit more, and the advantages the better supervisor has over the other is:

- More experience with supervising PhD students (The other one hasn't seen one through to completion, but has a student in their third year).
- Involved in lots of research. This is the main concern I have about the other one: although I will be working in collaboration with a research-based company, my primary doesn't have much going on aside from teaching.
- Better papers. Some of the better supervisor's papers have been cited a couple hundred times (386 was his most cited one as a sole author, to be exact). It's also evident from his most recent student that he encourages publishing mid-way through the PhD.

The upside to the other one, aside from the content is that I have more access to training facilities (Oceanography based, so there is more opportunity to go on research cruises, collect primary data etc). It will also most likely leave me with more of a "roudnness" about me, as I'll have received more support and training, which may be good for employability.

I have until Friday to officially decide, it''s a very tough one! Although I am very grateful to be in this position.

"filetype:pdf" into google. Makes searching for papers ten times easier :). I can tell this because my expertise is in a completely different area (Physical Oceanography), and I've never heard of the journal before!

http://mll.csie.ntu.edu.tw/papers/VideoconferenceProgramEnhancesSocialSupportLonelinessAndDepressiveStatusOfElderlyNursingHomeResidents.pdf Accessing from a home network with no sign-in. Hope it works :)

http://www.jain-resources.info/uploads/3/3/5/8/3358541/jones_article.pdf

I'm currently accessing this from my uni network so not sure if it will be blocked for yourself, but found it by searching for the paper in google scholar (To the right of the link, there was a "[pdf] from.." link).

Hi everyone, prospective PhD student here.

I applied for two different PhD projects last month, and have since received offers for both. Both are in the same department, at the same university (Where I currently study), and under the same DTP.

I would have said yes to either if I hadn't known I was guaranteed to have both offers, but am in the fortunate position of being able to choose. However, this has left me really stuck on what to do, because both seem like amazing opportunities.

If I were to choose based on subject, it would be the first one, but if I were to choose based on quality and status of the supervisor, it would be the other. My question is, what is the most important thing to base your choice on when deciding what to do?

It is also worth noting that the difference isn't extreme; both choices have both good supervisors and good subject content.