PM33: I really enjoy reading most of your comments here, and found them very useful. I do wonder, though, why you are so against people with lower grades taking on a PhD. Is it really the case that only people with very good 2:1s and above can hope to complete one? I've been told that a PhD demands not extreme intelligence, but self-discipline and perseverance. If that is the case, then a degree of whatever classification is evidence of some intellectual capability, so maybe people on lower grades, but with the right attributes, can excel in a PhD environment, or at least, be able to complete the degree?

I am slightly confused by the terminology used here. You use 'Distinction' for your undergrad degree, and '2:2' for your Masters classifications. Are we talking about a Scottish MA? If not, do you mean a First with distinction in your undergrad (a very high first), and a merit in your Master's? Or do you mean a Distinction in a non-honours degree (they used to be reasonably common before the proliferation of new universities in 1992)?

If its a First (or Distinction in a non-honours degree) at undergrad+ a high Pass/marginal Merit, then I think funding might be a problem. I think it might be better if its the other way round, ie., a low 2:1 plus a distinction, as they tend to look at your latest round of results, and the higher degree, with more importance.

But if you can find a supervisor willing to take you on and support you for funding, then go for it. Nothing venture, nothing gain. Keep on searching for potential supervisors online and good luck with your quest.

a couple of questions. The first is are you also applying for funding? If so, I think it might be difficult with your grades. I think the minimum grades needed are for funding these days are at least a 1st+ high merit, or high 2:1+distinction. If your proposal is very very strong, you might get away with a high 2:1 + a high merit.

The second is what universities have you been applying to? Some of the 'better' ones do ask for 2:1+merit, but if you have an interesting subject that interests your potential supervisors, you might be offered a place with your grades. The best bet is to contact potential supervisors and gauge their reaction. Also, entry requirements are usually on websites of individual institutions, and its probably not worth your effort of applying to institutions requiring distinctions as part of the entry requirements.

Lastly, I think you should be able to gain a place on a PhD course if you go the self-funded route, and you are not snobbish about the position of the institution on the league tables. A lot of posters here have pointed out that the prestige of a PhD depends less on the standing of the university, but more on the reputation of the supervisor and your own work.

A bit OT here. I actually find British academics (most of them those that I've encountered, anyway) have a tendency for understatements, which can be damn irritating. Instead of coming straight out and say what they think is wrong with proposals/assignment prior to it being submitted, which can make things far simpler to correct, to they tend to damn it with faint praise, or skirt around the issue. I think I have got use to the style now, so when I heard the phrase 'its an interesting argument, but...' or 'it is fine, but...', I immediately think of major edits/rewrites.

Not sure if its to avoid breaking the glass hearts of the modern young students, or the need to appear encouraging at all times, but most of the time, I just wish they would say exactly what they mean.

I've been trying to find a PhD (or rather the funding) to start in 2018. My experience is that contacting a potential supervisor to discuss your research topic is encouraged, and often a prerequisite prior to an application to the university. The only exception is Oxford, where you are only encouraged to look through the research interest of the academic staff, but not to contact any of them directly, and the university will assign a supervisory team once your application has been accepted.

I think the starting dates for most universities (the ones I've looked at anyway) are Sept/Oct and January. If you are looking for a fully funded place, the deadlines for most RC funded places are in Jan/early Feb for a start in Sept/Oct, so make sure you get your applications in on time if you want to start in 2018. Otherwise you must be prepared to take a year out and wait for the next round of RC funding applications, unless you are lucky enough to come across some funded projects being advertised. They are like gold dust in the social sciences field though.

Your post is hardly the epitome of civilized debate. I have no chip on my shoulder on this matter, as I have no connections whatsoever with the OU, and my Master's is from a Russell group, and so is my intended PhD.

I am just surprised that you could single out the OU and said that their PhD are considered less worthy than others, with one single reference, the other 'information' are merely your opinions unless you cite the evidence. The factors you mentioned, even if valid, can be applied to most UK higher education institutions, so why pick out the OU, and say that their PhDs are considered worth less than others?

Also, far from it for me to criticise a post-doc, but you cited one writer to support your wholesale damning of what is, as far as I know, a fine institution. Surely that is sloppy scholarship, even with the kindest of interpretations?

Given that, I am fully entitle to ask whether you have information that is denied to the rest of us. Certainly no emotion on my part in doing so. But from your post, it seems you might be suffering from some form of inferior complex in your job, as your institution do not have the power to confer degrees, but must reply on other to do so. Maybe you feel you deserve better after gaining your PhD from one of the 'top' unis?

Trilla: I would respectfully disagree that the 'hard' sciences are somehow more difficult, or have greater rigour than the humanities or social sciences. Without wish to enter fully into a epistemological or ontological debate, I would say that if anything, humanities and social science would be, if not harder, than certainly less straight forward, and therefore presents more of a challenge to the student, until we get to the very cutting edge of the hard sciences.

I fail to see how a PhD from say, Wolverhampton, Brooks, Manchester Met, or even one of the Russell group (the usual exception of Oxbridge notwithstanding) would be considered 'better' than an OU PhD. Surely it depends on the subject, the supervisor and the researcher? Or have you some information about the OU PhD that are denied to the rest of us?

For what it is worth, I will be 55 when I start my PhD (fingers crossed that the funding comes through), and not one of the potential supervisors out of the numerous that I approached mentioned that my age might be a problem. Mostly, it was about the lack or fit between my topic and their areas of expertise, or the difficulties in obtaining funding. I was lucky that I found someone who took a shine to my ideas, and helped me to revise my proposal to to ensure I have the best chance of getting the funding application through. It is now (or will soon be) in the hands of the god/s. Let's hope s/he/they smile on me.

I don't know about any concealed age-discrimination (for obvious reasons), but I've had nothing but encouragement so far from all those that I have approached. If anything, the process has somewhat restored my faith in human nature, at least in UK academics.