Interestingly, I was interviewed for a job with the OU, and they tore me apart for the marking sample I turned in for their consideration (which was done to the standards required at a brick university).

I did my Masters with the OU and found it to be excellent, and it certainly hasn't been looked down on by anyone. If anything, I have been told that OU study is good for demonstrating qualities such as self-discipline and motivation, since so much of it is done at a distance and to fit around other demands on the students' time. Additionally, there's not a hard and fast divide between OU academic staff and other universities - lots of academics do OU work as an additional job, so it's simply not true to say the staff are less scholarly - they're often the same people.

Hi Ciniselli, I would also say remember that at this stage, some things do come down to different approaches and differences of opinion, as suggested by the fact that your examiners want you to undo some of the things your supervisor told you to do. Yes, hopefully the corrections will lead to a better piece of work, but try to remember that even experienced academics get major corrections to do on papers they've submitted. Please don't feel that all this is about you personally. You are well on your way to having your PhD.

In my experience, it takes a while to work through the post-viva emotions if you've had any kind of curveball experience with it. When you think about how long we spend on the PhD, how much feedback we get along the way and how much work goes into responding to that feedback, and then all the pressure of the viva occasion, it's not surprising that it can knock us for six at the end. And to be honest, I've now heard such hugely varying accounts of viva practice that I just think it's all subjective anyway. I have more faith in my Masters result, if that makes sense, because of all the exams I had to pass along the way for that. Good luck with your new job, hope all goes well :-)

Was the manuscript something central to moving your thesis forward, or something else you were working on? I'd find it very difficult to work with a supervisor who took that long with something I needed to get to the end of the PhD - who can afford a year-long delay to get something read? However, if it was something that you just wanted a second opinion on, it might not have been such a deal-breaker, although it's still concerning.

Hi Jamie

I'm pleased to hear that you're going to discuss the report with your supervisor. This was something I found really helpful (I didn't get a report, but a list of points that could have been written on the back of a cigarette packet!). I found that after discussing what was actually needed, some of the corrections were smaller and more targeted than they first appeared - hopefully this may be the case for you as well. It is difficult when you get corrections/feedback you can't agree with, and you feel the point of your work has been overlooked - been there too! - and it becomes very much just a case of doing what they want to get your PhD. Two things my supervisor said that I found helpful - remember all the parts of your thesis that they passed without comment or correction (as we tend just to focus on the negative comments in times of high pressure), and remember you can do what you like with your work once the thesis has been passed, and can change it back or do whatever you want with it for other publications.

All the best with it.

Sympathies, Jamie_Wizard. I had a very similar experience and a harsh viva which took everyone (including my internal examiner) by surprise. I was similarly given the longer timescale to do my amendments, even though in the end they only actually took me 2 weeks. Hope you are looking after yourself in this post-viva period - I found it really tough, and all I can say is you will get through this and will have your PhD, but allow yourself some time to deal with the shock.

I agree with the Google suggestion - it is ever so quick for cutting and pasting references. Just make sure you read over your refs before submitting, as it does the odd strange thing (eg where there's a huge string of authors on a paper, it will miss some of them out and replace with '...').

Have you looked into things like temporary or casual jobs for just now? They don't tend to care so much about the qualifications you have, since they just want you for a fixed period of time. I hope you hear soon about your viva.

I benefited early on from a supervisor including me on a paper when I felt I hadn't made a huge contribution, so I would always include the names of all involved. To be honest, I see it mostly as a good thing, and when I was writing my lit review I liked getting the sense of different research groups and being able to look up related authors through seeing their names on relevant papers.

I think it varies a lot. I heard about mine a few days after submitting, and I had only 4 weeks to prepare, so I spent all the time getting ready for the viva.

I'd be tempted to ask your supervisor when's best for them. I'm just thinking it would be a shame to email it over at a time when they're taking annual leave or at a conference or something, which tends to be fairly common at this time of year.

My sense is that a lot of the 'negatives' about taking longer come from universities themselves, who tend to have target times for getting people through their PhDs. I think there are figures showing that completion rates tend to drop off the longer people take. You sound like you have several strong reasons for wanting to do this, and I don't think the longer completion time will be seen as a negative from employers' perspectives, especially as you are already teaching.