If you're only a month in, then you're probably taking it too seriously as yet.


But don't take that to extremes!

It's a piece of cake. Read loads. Read EVERYTHING. Write esssays with ten footnotes per page and a four-page bibliography. Just right everything you've got on that particular subject. They'll throw a merit at you. For a distinction, just structure it slightly.

Are you in molecular physics?

Where? and, who for? are the main questions.

Blimey! Gonna have to move to Singapore... the highest income level is SG$10,000... = < £5,000!

On edit: Surely the only respondants this survey requires are 'International students in Singapore.' You might find one or two of them here, but.

In other news, I note that Hiini hasn't actually said *why* s/he needs the plagarism detector? Always interested in numbnuts getting busted because they think (older!) people are daft :D

@YGTger- the 'community' would really need to understand the background before advising; and it sounds like that might come close to identify you in doing so? Certainly sounds bizarre though; professional supervisors tend not to purposefully sabotage their own candidates' chances.

@ToL- that's one of those elements of law that varies by jurisdiction. IIRC, in the UK it's not illegal to make such recordings, but it would be to publish them without consent. Elsewhere might be diferent (the USofA springs to mind).

The reason being, that the thesis is only presented at the viva, but is not awarded until any corrections (if any) are done. So the point is is that all PhD's examined are of different grades, but all those that are awarded, are the same grade.

If it does say 'and /or masters' then it is the bachelor's that is moot, not the masters.

If you haven't read or glanced at Dunleavy's 'Authoring a PhD' then it's probably too late; but chapter nine would help you.

Go for it mate. Remember that- excepting Polio ;) - 'that which does not kill us makes us stronger.' The point about failure- or at least *a* point- is that we can learn from it, and not repeat the mistakes of the past. As long as all the technical stuff is still operative (funding etc), then I would take what your supervisor says with a pinch of salt; although she has your interests at heart, they are finely balanced against her's and those of her employer, for whom it is better not to recruit than to fail. From your point of though, look at it like this- you were ambushed, and still survived (if only just!). You have a second opportunity to prove yourself and demonstrate the paucity of their current perspective.
I suggest you take it.

Well yeah... what if they ask whether your current grading is reflective of your overall commitment? As ToL said above, unless you've got majorly-mitigating circumstances.

Will yours be peer-reviewed?

I take it the revisions are usually diametrically opposed to your original thesis?!