I don't think it's about the undergrad class, masters, or experience here. I am sure anyone seeing your PhD application on paper would deem it more than suitable - you sound like you have sufficient experience.

The issue here is your own commitment and confidence to the PhD and you plainly say you don't think you are ready. If you feel that now, chances are you will struggle early on. You're currentlty working as an RA, but being contracted member of staff is quite different from researching as a PhD student. The latter demands a lot of self motivation, criticism and discipline, while as an RA you are more guided and have more structure to your work.

As BHC says, some masters courses are very good - perhaps you could look for one that has a good research component, whcih will give you more idea of your readiness to undertake PhD research.

If you've already been doing it for three years, I'm also quite flabbergasted that your soop hasn't been encouraging you to write anything previously. How can you not be ready to at least write *something* after all this time? I think, frankly, it is quite irresponsible of supervisors to delay this process. Surely it is in their best interests to encourage students to write sooner rather then later?

If I were you I would contact the research student office at your uni to find out exactly what the regulations are for entering a 4th year. My feeling is that any regulations of this nature are (or should be!) consistent across the university, and not dependent of supervisors' individual assessments

**I thought you got into writing up automatically as you entered the 4th year. I just found out (five shocking minutes ago) you don't. Your supervisor decides whether you're ready or not**

Hmmm, this sounds very cock-eyed to me. I'm assuming you're full time and in the UK? Full time PhD registration is usually 3 years. My understanding was that the 4th year - although nominally called a "writing up" year - is merely an agreed extension of the the 3 year period. I've known people get to 4th years who have still been in the final stages of collecting data, whilst writing up what they could.

If you were, say 2.5 years in, your supervisor may reasonably feel that's too early to curtail data collection, as it's within the registration period. However I always thought that once someone exceeded 3 years, it's a matter of university policy on how the 4th year is administered - not the supervisor's job to say who is/isn't a "normal" student.

Hi Hattie, so sorry that you;re feeling so disappointed right now.
Before I or anyone else can answer your questions, could you please provide some more details as it sounds like quite a complex story.

1: why are you applying for a masters course whan you already have/are in the process of completing one? Are you changing academic disciplines
2: you say the MSc is a "conversion" masters for a PhD - do you mean an ESRC 1+3 studentship? IF so , these are VERY competitive. (Or am I barking up the wrong tree?)
3: Who did your references? do you have any inkling that they might not have been favourable? Can you fond out?
4:What was your undergrad history? I know you mention difficulties with chronic illness, but if you specified those circumstances, course selectors should not discriminate on those grounds.....

I must also re-iterate, that that in this particular case I am not talking about someone who was lazy or uncommitted to the research. She was a top rank student in the department, but was thinking along the same lines as you are - re. downgrading to MPhil or quitting altogether.

Don't fall into that trap. Assess if you think your supervisors demands are reasonable or or unrealistic. If the latter, talk to your departmental director research (you should have one). You are clearly an enthisiastic and committed student, and should not be forced into this way of thinking if it's your supervisor who's got a problem.

Just to clarify, the reason I know this is because I was a research student academic course rep. A student came to me saying that her supervisor was intolerable, expecting her to do unreasonable hours, etc. She had no time to engage in other research related activities relevant to her work, which essential to students' academic and professional development.

We investigated, and it turned out that she was the only 100% research student in her lab. The others were RAs on higher salaries under different contractual conditions. They were required to work according to the demands of the research, but as a research student, she was not. The supervisor, however, was treating her as a contracted staff member. It went to the university research committee, and he was officially warned that his behaviour was unacceptable.

O Stoll is right, a demanding supervisor can be a good thing in terms of productivity and pass rates. It's if the demands are unreasonable - which you have to weigh up and pssibly compare with other students.

** A student has to work to the requirements of their supervisor, right? ** No, not necessarily. If you are a full time PhD student, the supervisor is there to advise and recommend. In theory, they cannot dictate what hours you work, etc. A 100% student is a free agent and (while this is highly inadvisable!) can work from 11am til 12 noon if they so wish. If you are a contracted member of research staff, and happen to be registered for a PhD on the side, that is an enturely different matter, and then yes, the supervisor can enforce conditions.

Before you consider doing anything as radical as re-registering for an MPhil, stop and consider the following:

You like your research topic, you already have experience in your topic. You sound like someone who is enthusuastic and competent. Downgrading to MPhil usually happens for someone who feels they canot manage the pressures/demands of a PhD. What you describe is the pressure *placed on you by your supervisor*, which is a different thing.

Generally, before you consider changing YOUR circumstances, think about whether the supervisor is placing unreasonable demands on you. If this is the case, there are steps you can take to address this, way before changing your course. Please consider this, as from your post it seems that going along the MPhil route would merely be cutting off your nose to spite your face at this stage.

I never did lab based work, but if I was in your position that's precisely what I would have done.

Universities are very strict with regard to intellectual property, and you have (very graciously) ensured that the person using your theory considers the IP issue. You've actually done a good thing for them (they'd have to be pretty stupid to leave your work unacknowledged now!)

Agree with the above comments - I think supervisors are so focussed on getting a student through their PhD, the question of what direction their student will take career-wise afterwards doesn't even figure on their thoughts.

As to the original question - I would hand on heart conduct my *project* again - the subject was great, the topic progressive and there are things I would do differently. But would I do it under the umbrella of a PhD again if I had the chance? No way. After all the uncertainty and anxiety I would not have gone for it. I would gladly done the same project employed as a researcher without the PhD registration.

I work in circles where I am fortunately respected for having a PhD, but I'm pretty sure my salary doesn't reflect this. I've been lucky t find a post-doc that's tailor made for my interests, but realise that this could easily not have been the case.

Steve is right about checking with your uni - they may have a specified format

mine was:

title page
abstract
acknowledgements
contents
list of tables and figures

Hi there, sorry for the delay - been in a meeting.

What are the standard regulations for your uni? Sorry if I am being abit slow on the uptake, but you say your jan 2009 deadline is end of 5 years? That is unusually long for a UK PhD registration period if you're full time. Maybe others can confirm here, but at my place it was 3 years + 1 writing up year if needed, anything after that 4th year had to be specifically negotiated within the rules and regs for extensions. Are you allowed up to 5 years then?

Can you not just put your referees' names down and inform the uni that your referees will send their info directly to them? Then send your chosen referees the form, stamped addressed envelope, instructions etc at the same time as you send your application? If it's a week and a half away they may be able to get the docs back to the assessors in time.

some questions:-

Are you in the UK?

is the Jan 2009 deadline the end of a 3 year registration period?

Or is it end of 4 years? (I note you say "four years into the course" but on what basis was this? have you always been full time? Are you on a 1+3 ESRC thing? Or straightforward PhD registration)

A little more background would be useful

Verdy raises an important point here. If you are an RA at the uni and your PhD is registered alongside that, you have the same contractual rights as any employee within the uni (sick pay, etc)

However it you are a PhD student full stop (IYSWIM!), there is no reason why they cannot work flexibly to accomodate your health and social needs. Suspending your studies is only an option if YOU feel that this is what you need. If you feel there are things that you can do that require no "thinking", but nevertheless tasks that will enable you to feel that you are doing something, I see no reason for them not to incorporate this strategy. It's just a matter of re-prioristing your work so that you can feel comfortable.