Ps. Re 80% not being impossible. You know your own abilities. If you apply yourself more than previously you should be able to achieve greater things! Even if you don't get the result you want, if you really commit to it then might manage to increase your overall average, and every little helps.
All the best.
Tudor

I find it mildly disturbing that you keep going around telling people (in this thread and in others) that no one should be doing a PhD without having obtained a 1st.

I got a high 2:1 in my undergrad because I didn't do all that well in 3rd year (dissertation was a 22/23 though), then I got offered a research masters with tuition scholarship during an internship without even applying. I passed my viva last month with minor corrections, and am now working with my supervisors to turn it into two papers. I will start medicine soon, but am also considering a PhD instead from next year on because I've really come to like research (problem is I prefer a field related to but still substantially different from my BSc and MSc, so need some preparation first).

And you want to tell me I'm unsuitable for a PhD because I didn't get a 1st at undergraduate? My supervisors certainly didn't think so, and neither did the examiners during my viva (they were quite eager for me to publish and mentioned they'd have loads of research for me if I did medicine at our uni).

The only reason I am writing about myself here is as an example to demonstrate that your exclusively grade-focused mentality is counterproductive. Some people are great at research projects but not particularly good at memorisation for exams - they can still make good scientists. Some people chose the wrong undergraduate and were perpetually bored in many modules, leading to suboptimal grades, but they may discover a field they love later on and still excel in it - again, who's to say they shouldn't do a PhD? You?

You are welcome. Listen, I genuinely hope you manage to succeed but you asked for honest opinions and I gave mine. You obviously appear to appreciate this but others on here seem to have got themselves a little over heated at the shocking idea that someone might voice an opinion different to theirs.

I did a Masters in Chemistry as well incidentally. In your final year you may well find yourself referring to principles you have learned in all three previous years. In my finals I was having to rely on 1st year knowledge. Organic is the most "synoptic" in that respect but so is inorganic. You will have difficulty in things like catalysis without being able to recall transition metal chemistry basics for example. Your university may teach different final year things but might be worth bearing this in mind before you go back. If your university has not lectures in your final year then you might well find it easier to improve your grade through the project work but if they are loathe to hand out good grades then maybe you won't.

Good luck either way. Would be good to hear how you get on.

If you find it mildly disturbing that someone can voice an opinion you don't like then quite frankly I don't know how to help you my friend.

If you want to discuss things in a less emotional and aggressive manner then please feel free to get back to me. I have absolutely no problem having my opinion challenged (I am a scientist after all) but you need to do it in a slightly more respectful manner.

You need to learn how your supervisor likes you to work and do it. Does it seem as if they expect you in the lab every day? Do they want you ask a lot a questions? Do they want you leave them alone and just get on it with it? You can ask these questions to other people in the lab (subtly) and watch how others interact with your supervisor and see what's effective and what's not. Be confident, but not cocky. If you don't know something, then say so, but show you've thought about it first. If they ask you to do something, do it.

I'm assuming biology and chemistry are pretty similar too.