======= Date Modified 02 Aug 2009 03:47:04 =======
A PhD in Law is quite different from most other disciplines and in my opinion it's one of the hardest in PhD discipines. Obviously the PhD is very different from the LLB, but then so are most PhDs relative to undergraduate or masters studies. Moving from an LLB to a PhD is quite a leap, and I wouldn't recommend doing a PhD in Law without also having an LLM completed, unless your PhD topic is based on an LLB subject. I would also recommend you have a look at some completed PhDs (you can download some examples at http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do).

PhDs in Law lean more towards the social sciences/humanities conventions in terms of length, but not in terms of structure (unless looking at a socio-legal issue). Eg. you don't write a literature review.

In terms of working alone etc. this all depends on your university and how pro-active it is with PhD students, and your PhD topic, eg. you may spend a lot of time collecting data/interviewing if your PhD is socio-legal, but otherwise, it will most likely be an isolated pursuit. One of the joys of law is the ability to get virtually all material from online sources, so unless you're looking at older material, you'll have very little call for visiting a library.

Most students have their work proofread by colleagues, friends and family, and you can hire a professional copy-editor as long as your university regulations don't state anything to the contrary. When hiring a native speaking, it is important to ensure the proofreading or copy-editing does not become 'content editing' (which is cheating). I copy-edit now and then, and I have to be very clear that I won't content-edit.

======= Date Modified 28 Jul 2009 23:16:17 =======
Olisaa, all uni's are interested in research output as this contributes to RAE/REF, so be careful about how you approach employers, but also be beware that many universities/staff will take offence if you view research-orientated roles as not also involving an important teaching role (you'll be considered inflexible). Universities are becoming very sensitive about ensuring faculty teach and are available to students.

In my experience (looking for a job for the past 6 mths), HE is generally saturated by research roles with Russell Group universities not recruiting (with reported cuts being made over the next several years), and the posts that are appearing are mostly teaching-led universities (ex-polys/new unis). You might be wise to look specifically for a 'teaching fellow' post, but this may limit your career progression. But in the current job market, it's a case of beggars can't be chosers, and you have to take what's available.

I don't believe you're being unrealistic to want a teaching-dominated role, but if you go down this route you'll have to look towards FE colleges and new universities with small research profiles.

As PhDbug raises, you could look at designing you own course, but also be prepared to be able to teach standard UG and/or PG courses in your field (eg. don't be too niche to the point where only a handful of uni's will be interested in you).

Never trust Word for grammar changes - it's complete crap! Follow your examiner's opinion (even if you think he/she is wrong) or double-check with grammar/style guides.

Check out Grammar Girl (I love her advice!):

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/who-versus-whom.aspx

"When you're trying to decide whether to use who or whom, ask yourself if the answer to the question would be he or him. That's the trick: if you can answer the question being asked with him, then use whom, and it's easy to remember because they both end with m. For example, if you're trying to ask, "Who (or whom) do you love?" The answer would be "I love him." Him ends with an m, so you know to use whom. But if you are trying to ask, "Who (or whom) stepped on Squiggly?" the answer would be "He stepped on Squiggly." There's no m, so you know to use who. So that's the quick and dirty trick: if you can't remember that you use whom when you are referring to the object of the sentence, just remember that him equals whom."

Haha..sounds like the town near to where I currently live! I decided to brush up on my French, and joined a local class. I managed to not get on with anyone and received a few patronising comments/inverted snobbery about my field and academic life. I spent the 3 hour class imagining what the surburban mums were like at school, who was the bully, who was the popular one, who was the town ride. And then I didn't go back.

Try to look for like-minded people! I suppose tennis isn't quite the best sport for socialising. How about a hiking/walking/cycling group?

A Phd in Figure Skating...
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Ice_work_if_you_can_get_it_-_a_PhD_in_figure_skating&in_article_id=709330&in_page_id=34

I'd say Hull is a good university - fair enough, it's not one of the big international hitters, but it is known as a "good" solid university, and certainly not known as a mickey mouse university. Two of my friends who were privately educated and achieved good A level results chose Hull to study law. The town is working-class (an old port/fishing industry town) and it has suffered a decline and it is dull (similar to many other English towns), but I don't think it's fair to judge the university based on its location. For instance, Warwick University is in Coventry (which by many is known as a dump), but this doesn't usually detract students. Like Warwick, Hull university isn't slap bang in the middle of town, but nearer the suburban areas.

I visited friends at Hull, and many live in Cottingham which is a nice village (famous for Philip Larkin - the poet) just near the university, and they never ventured into the actual town centre, but spent their time in Cottingham or on campus. I've been to many universities, and the Hull's students were by far the friendliest I've ever come across (and it had the cheapest beer).

'Deletion'...well that's a nice word for it. :-(

Badhaircut, I read somewhere that some US universities are making the unprecedented move of laying-off tenured professors, but we must remember the US system is mostly private and more 'sensitive' to economic changes. It's not uncommon for universities to go bust in the US (but then if we get a Tory government, we'll probably have a few universities going bust here too).

======= Date Modified 24 Jul 2009 17:57:26 =======
Well it looks like 6000 jobs may potentially go in universities and colleges:http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jul/16/lecturers-redundancy-recession

======= Date Modified 20 Jul 2009 17:33:19 =======
The high-end/luxury brand sector certainly does exist (there was a very good BBC business report about it), and it's actually a growth industry.

...but given the financial crisis, it's probably not a good idea to limit your choices to a niche market. Since you're paying for course, you'd be much better doing a standard MBA at a top management school.

Whose exactly going to put a black mark by your name for not attending? Do you really think the organisers are going to tell everyone you didn't turn up and how awful it is? I don't mean to sound patronising but you seem overly sensitive that pulling out of conferences will result in some terrible negative impact on your career. People pull out of conferences all the time, and as long as it's not a last minute thing or you're the leading speaker - it will most likely go unnoticed anyway. You'd just be silly not to put your health first.

The press were reporting the other week that 350,000 jobs will be going in the public sector in the next few years (obviously after the election), and I wonder if universities are freezing recruitment in light of these cuts and the global economic downturn. I'm not sure if the cuts will apply to academia, but I get the impression universities are being very prudent at the moment.

I wouldn't crudely consider a PhD 2 MPhils (unless you're looking at time commitment/word count etc), the standards are different.

A MPhil with a studentship is definitely worth doing if you're interested in pursuing research, and at the end of the MPhil you'll probably be able to upgrade to a PhD if you so desire.

Personally, I've always viewed MSc or MA as a lower degree compared to an MPhil - the latter usually involving more work (usually 2/possibly even 3 years) and independent research.

Whether the MPhil is worth has nothing to do with is equivalency to an MSc etc., but what you can gain out of it...

Complexification and complication are two different words, with two different, albeit overlapping, meanings.

...but I agree with Rosy, some of you need to lighten up a little ! :-)

For me, a postdoc is anyone who has completed their PhD studies, and is in a temporary research position at a university/institute, and not yet at the level of a full-time, tenured (or tenured-track), faculty position.

I wouldn't narrow the definition to only positions that involve applying for a grant, but rather to any sort of research-based fellowship, assistantship etc.

Post-doc is generally not a word used in many social science/humanities subjects where it is expected that a PhD holder will go straight into a lecturer/ass. prof position; however, in the sciences it is very common (probably because there are more science PhDs around so universities exploit them more).