I am sorry to hear you got rejecetd. Though don't be too down-beaten as it is only one rejection. There are plenty of opportunities and it all depends on who you are up against. Sometimes you might be competing against bona fide super geniuses or other times a rabble of stoners. You shouldn't be put off because of one rejection, learn from the feedback and improve your next application.

I don't think so unless told otherwise. The PhD is a better degree than an MPhil and awarding them by default is rather redundant. From my experience (could be wrong) they are awarded if you drop out and submit a small dissertation. Though, I don't your particular circumstances and if you had technically been upgraded.

In engineering you should not be self funding PhDs. If your supervisor thinks it can get funding talk with and possibly consider it, otherwise take a job. I would take the lined up job and then consider a PhD later. As a job will not rule out a PhD later and will give you time to make the right decision.

About the PhD, do you like the topic enough to devote three years to it? If you are not passionate now, you probably aren't going to be motivated in three years. Research is really arduous and if you have no interest in research or the project, I don't think you should consider it. Sorry for being so harsh but a PhD is more a battle of motivation than sheer intellect. However if you do are genuinely interested in the topic/project and want to have a career in that specific area, I would consider it.

Read. Read. Read!

Seriously just read as much as you can about your topic and field. It will give you better understanding of your PhD proposal and help you massively if you do a PhD. Try and find everything you can related to the topic so that you can understand what gap in knowledge you are investigating and how you will go about solving it. This will make writing any applications or grant funding a lot easier, as you have a deep understanding on what you want to study, ie look like a better student.

I wish you all the best and hope other people give you some additional advice!

Done

I think if they contact your references before the interview you are more likely to get an interview. Talking with your references is probably a better way to sift CVs than just reading the CV. I don't think it will impact your odds of getting the job once you have an interview.

Sounds about right. I think the number of papers during a PhD (and when) depends on the project more than the student. Some projects just have more papers than others and doesn't discredit you as student. Just do the best research you can.

I agree with Tudor_queen and pm133. You can always take a productive break from academia or suggest your own project. However, I am going to suggest something else, a multi-disciplinary PhD. You love your field but is there another semi-related field at your university that might be willing to co-supervise you? If you have two supervisors in different fields, it will be less of a burden for your supervisors and the supervisors with admin duties/too many PhD students might be interested in supervising you then. I understand you love your field but doing it with a side relish of another field might allow you to do a PhD at your University.

From my limited experience (still a PhD student), the post-doc market is very competitive unless you have a connection to the PI. I am sorry to say it but more PhD students graduate every year than post-doc jobs and unless you have an inside connection it will be always be competitive

On a side note my second supervisor hired a post-doc entirely because he knew one method. She never met him before the interview and he knew very little about the field except how to do a very specific polymerisation method that was crucial to the project. My supervisors attitude was she can teach him everything else and he could teach her the polymerisation method. I know it is hard to know what is important beforehand but you should be thinking what can you bring to the role/project. So instead of being generic about what you know, what makes you special?

I actively share incomplete data sets. I treat each step of the process as something different and create different files. So it easy to send a data of my results of my supervisor without giving her any of methodology or raw data. I can also send it to other people knowing that they can't steal my work but they have my final results. I don't know if it is applicable to your field but it might be an idea to only share parts of your work. Enough for them know what you are doing and what you have achieved but without any of the useful bits.

What is plagiarism. They should not publish any paper and you have proof you shared it with them if they do try to publish your work. However you are part of a team ie, the department. In my opinion they do have a right to use your work and share your results, as the most fundamental part of research is dissemination. There is no point doing great work but hiding the results and not telling anyone. In general, I think it is fair to talk about others people work if the original author told you about. By sharing the paper they might have thought that you wanted them to know and that you were going to publish it soon. Not crediting you and pretending it is was their work is wrong but using the results you presented them is fair.

Focus on the good parts. You mostly got positive feedback, which is what you should be thinking about. Seek to build on your strengths rather worry about your negatives. It is difficult breaking the impostor syndrome cycle but should take compliments at face value, ie as compliments. They like your work, so what is wrong. I know you feel you can be better but your supervisor has praised your work, so it must be good enough. So I don't think you should be worried about it.

How big of a change is it? Most people's PhD changes through the course of 3 years as the work develops. Like, I greatly simplified my project and focused on a particular concept, as otherwise the experiments would be impossible. You will need to refer to your proposal and see how you can link it with the new topic. If it is a sub-topic in the same overall field with some cross-over you might be ok. Otherwise if it is a big jump you will need to check your funding source.

I agree with tru, don't quit the PhD until you have a job lined up. In the meantime you can treat your PhD as strictly a job with regular hours. I think you should only do a PhD if you enjoy the topic/project, as motivation becomes a problem otherwise, like you describe. Treating the PhD as job and developing your life outside of uni will give you some much needed freedom and potentially relive you of burnout (if you have it). I see too many people be consumed by their PhD project to the point that it is their life, which is not healthy. Detaching yourself from your PhD slightly, might make you more motivated, if that makes sense.