Overview of Mackem_Beefy
Recent Posts
Can I do another PhD?
I've seen this question pop up on here on a number of occasions. If you've had your shot at a PhD, aren't you potentially denying a place to someone attempting a PhD for the first time by doing this especially if it's a funded position?
As well as being unlikely to obtain funding, many potential supervisors will turn down someone already holding a PhD. Also, one PhD is a killer, no matter how rewarding it may have been. Not too many would want to put themselves through that level of stress and pressure again.
I remember a post somewhere about people going back for another go years later and not in the same subject area as their original PhD. Doing something similar to what you've already done would add no value to your original PhD and would cause problems for potential employers as a person with two PhDs would definitely be seen as 'overqualified' especially in the real world.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
looking for existing PhDs :s
Spuddy,
Take a read of my blog about PhDs. I think you don't fully understand what a PhD is.
A PhD is an individual project taken to make an original contribution to the field the person chooses to work in, generating new findings in that field. The blog will explain more.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Is the supervisor expected to check the candidate's work? e.g. typos, correct citations, etc.
It's ultimately your responsibilty. It's your PhD, and you have more time available to spend on this than a busy supervisor.
Don't stress over small errors though. They can be easily and quickly fixed post-viva. And small errors aren't enough for a fail.
After submission people always spot masses of them and go into a major panic! Needlessly.
I see. So, I don't have to feel bad that my supervisor is not checking my work then.
For the second one, I mean for published work, as in conferences and journals.
As BilboBaggins says, it's ultimately the PhD candidate's responsibility. However, the picture is not as clear as that. Most supervisors will want to look at the thesis to ensure the candidate remains on track especially during write-up. It is not in the supervisor's or the University's best interests to have too many candidates fail or end up with major revisions.
My primary supervisor going through my thesis script four or five times and changing his mind on what he thought I should put in was the main hold up to my submission a few years back.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Anyone else doing corrections
Pineapple,
You say you've minor corrections, but how much have you actually got to do?
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Daft Question about Submission Times (UK Universities)
I agree with TEHEPIKDUCK321. Finishing a PhD in a timely manner is an important skill to show that you can complete a project in a reasonable time, and not drag it out too long. If there are personal reasons for an extension then that can be applied for, including medical reasons. But I don't see why full-timers should run on many years overdue, or part-timers similarly. I'm all in favour of research councils encouraging universities to clamp down on long-runners.
I should say that I took just under 6 years to complete my part-time PhD, but given that I was assumed to be half-time, and in practice was only 5 hours a week for medical/disability reasons, I feel ok about this. It was also within the strict time limits set down my both my university and funding body (AHRC) [4 years for full-timers, 6 years for part-timers]. I don't understand how some full-timers can rack up similar periods. There has to be some sense of urgency and forward progress.
I agree with the timely manner remark. However, with the amount of data I had (the equivalent of both my predecessors combined) and a primary supervisor who was not going to allow submission until he was 99% sure about minor corrections maximum, a quick submission was never going to happen. However, a torturous write-up was worth it to only leave the examination room with three minor typos.
I offered to withdraw two subsections that would have allowed submission well inside the four years and still leave a more than viable document (thought being to publish excess data later to journal, which I did anyway later to bolster my publication count). However, my supervisor said no. Had a strict four year deadline been in place, I wonder if his answer would have been different.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
How many papers are you expected to publish for a PhD programme?
If we don't "publish", how do we proof the validity of our work? In my mind, if I could at least publish the work(s) in a peer-reviewed conference proceedings, then I may be able to convince the examiner that the work has "some" validity (may not be true of course).
Smoobles and Frisbee commented that papers put out helped in viva with the work covered (theoretically) already peer reviewed. In my case, the external examiner never mentioned the two papers already published, though I guess everyone's experiences are different. Some of your data being peer reviewed should help you though and it depends upon the examiner as the examiner might decide to take another look at that data anyway.
Also, I heard these days that a publication in a conference proceeding may be equivalent in prestige as a journal publication?
As with the journal and it's impact rating, it can depend on the prestige and repute of the conference.
*This is probably a daft question; if the paper is accepted in a conference, would it be automatically accepted in the conference proceeding?
If the conference has proceedings, yes. However, some meetings may not have 'proceedings' as such and I've been to a couple which did not. There are also instances where rather than dump the papers in the proceedings to a CD or DVD, the papers presented may appear in a special edition of one of the main journals.
--------
EDIT: The main point I forgot in my earlier post (I could have sworn I put this in, but obviously not) is that although you should try to have published one or two papers during your PhD, it doesn't seem essential to obtaining the PhD. My immediate predecessor did not have any journal publications and his predecessor only published one paper. However (echoing others remarks), published papers in especially hgh impact papers are a big help if you want a future in academia or research
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
How many papers are you expected to publish for a PhD programme?
Most people put out one or two papers during their PhD, some three (UK model). Whether this is as a first or corresponding author, or as a co-author does not seem to be an issue.
Putting out two or three conference presentations is usual too (and a few posters where you stand and look pretty too).
I was listed as a first author on one paper (though was not corresponding author) and a co-author on a second before my PhD was submitted. A third paper was put out with me as a co-author just after my PhD. I managed two conference presentations and three poster presentations, plus contributed to a conference presentation by my supervisor and a further by another colleague during the PhD period too.
However, publications are everything as said earlier and the level of data produced during my PhD allowed for more papers to be published. I managed over the next few years to first author (as corresponding author) a further six papers. My supervisor also asked me to co-author a book chapter based on my PhD work and being the main contributor, ended up first author on that too (there wouldn't have been a book chapter had they not included me as they'd taken on too much work - it also help me as I was unemployed at the time after a bad second post-doc at another Uni.). There is also a further freely distributed document on the internet not quite up to journal standard.
The point of the above is if you want to make the most of your PhD and improve your chances of obtaining post-doctoral positions, you should try to get as many papers out of your PhD or other work as possible. I published my data with this in mind, however, as my current job is in the real world my efforts have not benefited me directly. However, it does strengthen my hand should I try or have to return to a research or academic position.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Daft Question about Submission Times (UK Universities)
So this hardening to the four year rule seems more about a department being able to show that PhD candidates are completing within a given period to funding bodies and government departments.
Thus if after four years you have not submitted, that's it, you're finished, and you don't show up in the University's statistics?
The University can then say 100% of their candidates who submitted, submitted with four years? Am I being cynical?
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Daft Question about Submission Times (UK Universities)
Talking to people on another forum about PhD submission deadlines, in the past I noted some places (UK Universities) enforced submission after 4 years fulltime whilst others were quite happy to allow five years or more.
I submitted after 4 years and two months what seems a lifetime ago now. My old University has now adopted the 4 years maximum rule. It is probably a good thing as my own supervisor would delay submission until he was 99% certain of pass with minor corrections (I fell into this trap). I know of one instance of a fulltime student who submitted after 7 years (he was working fulltime after the four year mark, so he had something to live on), with two further submissions after 6 and 5 years. So tightening up the rules would prevent students and supervisors alike from delaying unless there were extreme circumstances (health, etc.).
Am I right in thinking there's a general tightening up by Universities on submission deadlines and 4 years maximum regardless of where you are is becoming the norm?
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Do you ever read your published paper back?
Those who have written 1000+ paper normally do not write any single word. I saw a couple of invited papers in my field which even the manuscript is not prepared by the solo author himself/herself, but the students. The author only acknowledged this, not list these poor students as co-authors.
How true this is. I doubt they've even proofed the paper before forwarding for publication or presentation. :-)
There's also papers with so many multiple authors for every minor contribution, where conversely an acknowledgement would have been enough. I'm sure in a few cases, even the tea lady is listed!!! :-)
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Revise & Resubmit
I'll be more direct as to what I would do. I would suspend now and try to delay until the PGHCE was over.
I would want a clear run at the PGHCE and I think the PGHCE is slightly more important to your immediate employment prospects.
But that's just my penny's worth. All I'm really saying is don't take on too much at once.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Revise & Resubmit
Hi all,
Sorry re. my exceptional lack of replying, I'm afraid the reality is that I've not had a chance to work on my PhD - I've had lectures to write, etc plus work duties. So, I've wasted 3.5 months of my extra year which really wasn't a good plan but I get so monumentally angry when I think of it (plus anxious) that for my own mental health I've stayed away from it.
I got an email from my main supervisor saying he was worried about the progress of my PhD, which isn't entirely surprising to be honest. I think the main problem is that I don't care anymore - and I don't mean that in a trite 'throwing toys out of the pram' sort of way, but in a 'I'm just so tired of all this, I don't want it in my life' way.
Anyway, maybe I'll feel chirpier if I can some work done on it, but to be honest if I could think of another way of making money and surviving, I'd do that in a flash. Ho hum...
Sartois.
Sartios,
This is just me spelling out the options.
As per my above post, I suggest suspending studies until the PGCE is over. You just don't have the time with the lecturing duties and PGCE as I have already commented.
If you take no action, you will be failed.
If you just want it out of your life, are you willing to take an MPhil and would this mean no or fewer corrections? Even here, you might have to suspend.
If you feel that badly about it and it doesn't matter to your life as it is now, there is withdrawal and you seem to have a full life as it is. Major corrections can be just about a full time job in itself.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Maximum age for a PhD + Academic Jobs in Humanities without PhD
I didn' expect all this help, thank you from the bottom of my heart! I thought the idea of a 34 years old person wanting to do a Phd might sound wierd and crazy :-))
Anyway,I'm trying to understand also what it means to be funded: does the University exonerate you from paying taxes, or they also give you an amount for paying your own living costs?Obviously, I should also pay a rent and all the rest...
@maccle, I'll certainly take a look at the Trinity College Dublin, thank you for the suggestion, it's a good idea! (Even though at the moment I'm more interested in English authors of the 17th century, but there many things I'm interested in though...) What do you expect after you PhD, if I may ask?
@Mackem_Beefy...well, a person in his 50s doing a PhD? Your're making me feel not so old, after all :-)
I will certainly take a look at your blog, even though, as I understand, it's more specific for non-humanist studies, isn't it?
Yes, as I'm an Engineering / Science-based PhD graduate. The blog contains a list of UK funding bodies part way down, though you may wish to also investigate the possibility of funding from your home country.
It's better you look for a PhD project on offer that is close to your own expectations, that is a 'pet project' of an academic or research group. For such projects, they have the project and money and are just looking for the student to fill the vacancy. It is competitive though and you will have to compete in interview probably with other potential students.
If successful, you receive a tax-free stipend and do not have to pay the fees. The funding body pays those.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
Maximum age for a PhD + Academic Jobs in Humanities without PhD
Let me assure you there's older than you do a PhD. I was 30 years and 9 months (i.e. just the wrong side of 30) when I started mine and 35 when I finished. I know of older who decided to go back too, including one man who came back to do a PhD part-time in his 50s. If it's an itch you've got to scratch, go for it.
PhDs come from two groups. Firstly, there's those who enter a PhD straight from their degrees. Secondly, there's those who come back after a significant time outside academia and such people can easily be in their 30s or 40s.
I can't offer specific advice on your chosen field, however, my blog may be of some help to you - see following.
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
PhD Application Expectations
Why don't you see what funded research studentships are offer in UK Universities? Search via:
http://www.findaphd.com
and see if anything there fits in with the subject area you wand to do?
Normally in the UK, a potential supervisor or research group has a project they want to do for which they obtain funding. They then find a person to be a research student to fill the resulting vacancy.
You are forwarding yourself as a potential student with a research idea who is trying to find a supervisor or research group. If what you want to do does not fit in with the potential supervisor's or research group's interest, you are less likely to be accepted. Even if you are, your approach means funding is less likely and you may have to pay out of your own pocket if you want to proceed.
I'm not sure how much my blog will help, but here goes:
http://www.wearthesis.talktalk.net
Ian (Mackem_Beefy)
