Is it funded in the sense that the project itself has received funding and that you have applied for the position to be the PhD student who gets the funding?

If it is the latter, then you are likely to be competing with other possible students who are wanting that particular block of money. In which case, you can consider the funding situation like a job interview - the funding is guaranteed and it is either you or someone else will get the money. In which case, it's typically up to the supervisor to choose who they want to work with - this might relate to academic merit, but it might also could be to do with the proposal itself. It really depends on what the funding is for.

This massively varies depending on all sorts of things and criteria.... I'll give you a couple of examples.

I know of one department who has 3 fully funded (at UK/EU/Home rate) PhD places each year. The funding comes from the EPSRC, but it is at the department's discretion as to who they give it to and for what. The department will interview all potential PhD students and decide on who gets the funding based on a) the ability of the student, b) the strategic direction of the department's research profile, c) the stage of the supervising academic (priority is being given to early career academics), and d) whether they have any other funded PhD students in the same research group from the same source for that year - i.e. research groups are limited to a max of 1 student per year using this funding source.

Alternatively, I know of another funding source for overseas-rates of funding which is allocated at a university level. The university committee compares all relevant funding applications and then considers a) which department the student is in and whether it is one that has received this funding source in the previous year, b) the strength of the student application, c) the ability of the student and all sorts of other strategic criteria.

Basically, departments and universities all have very varying priorities. The best way to get funding is to make sure you are a strong student making a strong application based on research that is interesting and relevant to the department and university - massive bonus points if you're proposal is likely to produce REFable research outputs and if it fits within the University's strategic directions.

But frankly, you are never going to know why one student gets funded over another. And your supervisor is unlikely to have any influence at all.

Typically, yes. I submitted a paper to a workshop at a conference where the end goal of the workshop was to put together an edited book based on the submissions. After the workshop I was asked to extend my 4 page posiition paper into a book chapter which was again peer reviewed, accepted and published. The whole process took a long time though, the book was published about 2.5 years after the initial workshop paper accepted.

Your university may have specific regulations about things like this. I know that mine requires appendices to be lettered. So, check your specific university regs before making a decision o ryou could end up with a lot of reformatting/changes at the end.

Are there any limitations on the projects? Which supervisor would you like to work with more? What is the expertise and experience of the supervisors?

These sorts of questions are typically more important when choosing PhD institution. For example, I know a student who is taking PhD funding at York despite receiving financial aid to study at 2 Ivy League institutions. The reason being, York has the world lead academics in the area.

Prestige isn't everything...

Also, I had a similar experience with citalopram. But, for me increasing the dose actually made the difference for me. I now take 60mg every day.

Medication works differently for everyone though.

The main side effect I have with this dose is that I have awful insomnia which is a bit of a problem given I am now working full time as an academic which finishing my PhD part time. But, never mind.

I tried mixing it up at one point, where I would take some citalopram in the AM and something different at night (the side effect of which was drowsiness). And while I was sleeping properly.. I became nasty! I remember being out with some friends and within 5 minutes of meeting up I'd told 1 guy that I hated him and another that he was a pretentious c***. So I left and went home and shouted at my cat because she wanted a cuddle.

This was the point I realised that sleeping well wasn't worth being on that particular combination of drugs!

My point, is that it can take a while to find the right medication and combination of medications. Once I found the right combo I felt like I deserved some extra help so started talking therapy as well. Before that, I hadn't felt like I deserved talking therapy so refused to try it.

Frankly, you need time and space to figure out the right course of treatment for you. And the PhD is not going to be enough of a low-pressure environment for you to take that time and space.

If you are that unwell then taking a leave of absence is absolutely the right thing to do. You need to focus on getting better, and that is typically going to take a lot of time and energy. You need to accept that your brain is fighting you right now and that you are not thinking clearly. This affects the work you are doing on your PhD, and your ability to make this decision.

I took 9 months leave of absence from my PhD at the start of my Continuation (i.e. writing up) year because I went through a breakdown. If I had taken it earlier, my funding would have been stopped (not lost) while I was absent. I continued working for about a year while I was very ill before I realised I couldn't go on like that.

That break was the best thing I could ever have done. In fact, I wish I had taken it sooner. I spent the 9 months working part time while spending the rest of my time sleeping and recovering from what was a pretty severe mental breakdown.

At the time, I had been working consistently on my PhD despite being ill. But, I spent hours of every day redoing my work because I was convinced that everything I did was rubbish. After a 9 month break to get better, I could see that the work I had done wasn't rubbish.. it was fine.

I was so ill at the time, I could not see that I wasn't making progress, despite working crazy hours.

In fact, my depression meant that I wasn't able to see the connections between concepts in my work. So, even though I was working, I wasn't working as intelligently as I did after the break.

Coming back to the PhD was really hard. But, the break has meant that I will finish my PhD. If I hadn't had the break, at best I wouldn't have submitted. The worst doesn't even bear thinking about.

Many PhD offers are conditional on completing an MSc/MA/MRes etc. it's largely to make sure the student actually completes their previous programme rather than slacking off and having a break or something.

My offer of a PhD place and funding was conditional upon me passing my MSc. There was no specific grade expected, just a pass. I started my PhD before I got the result of my MSc, the understanding was that if I did fail the MSc (unlikely - but a technical possibility) then I would have to repay the funding I had already received and would no longer be on the PhD.

I'd had some marks back for a couple of modules, which were at distinction level. But, my referees knew me quite well because I always contributed in class and demonstrated that I had a brain, which definitely helped.

If you're MSc referee is only commenting on your marks, then I suspect you are in trouble. They should definitely know you and your capability to think at this point (assuming you starting in Sept).

Many people end up applying for PhDs prior to completing their MScs, this is quite normal.

What usually happens is your MSc supervisors will provide you with a reference which comments on your academic ability and predicts a grade. Usually, your offer of a PHD place (and/or funding) will be conditional upon you achieving a certain grade in your MSc (which might be a pass or a merit, depending on both the institution you are studying and at the one you are applying to).

I got PhD funding with a mid-2.i in my undergrad because my supervisors at MSc level saw I was getting distinction grades consistently in my MSc - it was more closely related to the subject I Wanted to take at PHD than my u/g so I did better in it. It definitely helped that I was applying for PhDs at the same place as my MSc though.

Hi,

Do you have a disability services at your university? At mine, anything which is a medically documented issue (or for which there is other evidence) that has been ongoing for more than a year can be classified as a disability at which point the teaching staff/everyone has to make their best effort to take into account any support plan that is in place.

I have worked with a student with similar social anxiety issues before. If there is any assessment that includes a presentation then they are permitted to give the presentation by themselves, one-to-one with the marker. But, if "oral presentation skills" aren't part of the learning objectives of the module then they are permitted to submit the assessment in an alternative, pre-agreed manner - they typically submit a transcript of a planned presentation in this case.

If presentations are just being included in the module teaching method rather than the assessment, then this student always works with another student who is aware of their social anxiety problems - either in a pair or as part of a group. Both of the students will prepare the presentation and work together on creating the topic, doing research etc. but the second student actually stands up in front of the group and gives the presentation.

Now, this does add a requirement that all presentations in the class are done in pairs. But, this is an accommodation we make to take into account the disability of the student with social anxiety. This obviously works because we have another student who is happy to present alone, but they have said to me that they are absolutely happy to do that because the student with social anxiety contributes a lot to the research and development of the presentation to compensate for the fact they are not delivering it.

Perhaps you could look into something like this?

It massively varies from university to university and depends on the nature of your contract (if you have one).

My Associate Lecturer post is fixed term for 2 years and my official notice period is a minimum of 3 months to include a full academic term. So, in theory, if I submitted my notice today I wouldn't be able to leave until the end of the Summer term which kinda sucks. Though, in my experience, managers can give permission for a shorter notice period than is required by the contract.

It might not really be necessary to have a separate Methodology chapter if you're including detailed method sections elsewhere. If you're struggling to find things to write, then don't force it.

You've asked the question to a forum of users who are mostly pursuing postgraduate education. A large proportion of whom are toiling away at their PhDs in order to get the dream academic job. And sadly, most of us, despite the YEARS of low pay and sacrifice to get the job, won't actually get the job.

No wonder we're a bit snippy about someone wanting to get the academic job without going through the hell that is a PhD! It's a right of passage into academia. And no, not everyone has one. The academics who don't are abso-frigging-lutely incredible. And have achieved a lot in a glistening career outside of academia.

So, bewildered is right. Route 1) time travel. Route 2) be awesome. More awesome than you are probably imagining. Route 3) suck it up and get thyself a PhD.

I say this as someone who is finishing her PhD while working full time. I haven't had a day off in 6 months (not even at the weekend). Hell, I only allow myself a max of 2 evenings off a week. And even with all that dedication, I fear my chances of getting the dream academic job at the end of it all are slim. So yeh, your post irked me somewhat. I'm guessing it did others as well.

I've been lecturing for a few years now and am now in a full time teaching position (while attempting to finish my PhD).

Truth is, teaching takes practice. And preparation. I would strongly advise having more to say than is on your slides, keep notes to remind you of points, and specific examples you can use to illustrate your points. And I always have an exercise of some sort in my pocket for the end of the lecture, just in case I go through too quickly. I don't always use these exercises, depends how the class is going. The best teachers are flexible and can respond to what is going on during the session.

If you're asking questions and the students aren't responding, my favourite technique is to ask the students to discuss the question in pairs. And then pick on individuals to tell me what their partner said. That way, the students are more likely to speak up - because they're responding with their partners ideas, rather than their own. And what often happens is that the other student will chime in to clarify or explain what they actually meant leading to a broader discussion.

Another thing I usually have which I can drag out on no notice is a 10 minute review of the course so far or a "look ahead to what's coming next" discussion. Then, if we're going quickly through the material I can take some time to situate the students in the wider course which is helpful for everyone, encourages self reflection and takes up time.

Lectures don't (and in my view shouldn't) just be about the teaching delivering information. The students should be chatting with each other and forming their own thoughts and opinions. Give them time to do this, and you'll be using more than 20 minutes for sure.

But equally, timing material in lectures is tough. The more you do it, the better you get at judging how much to include in each lecture.