Hi karmah,

Again, sorry to hear about your loss. The last few months must have been hard. Though academics can be socially useless and sometimes don't know what to say. By not saying anything they might be trying to avoid there own social awkwardness. Are they saying negative? Like making comments about being away? If they are just ignoring it and trying to give you some space/privacy.

However, they should at least ask how you are doing.

Agree with chantedsnicker that is possible with a 2:1 but it depends on the competition. Your average looks good with only 2 modules bringing you down which isn't too bad.

It also depends on the field you are going into, if the PhD is close to one of your high scoring modules or your thesis, you still have an excellent chance. Apart from grades (which are important) they want to see a passion for your field and possibly relevant skills/experience. If you can show them you have a good chance.

Go for it!

Some want to collaborate with you, that is a good sign that people think you are good enough to publish. The more you publish, the easier it will be. Don't hesitate because you think you will fail or because you want to have the perfect paper on your own work, you would just be delaying the inevitable.

Though is this a stand-alone more ap or is he/she is trying to piggyback off your work? If it is the latter I understand your hesitation and giving away authorship when you are close to doing it solo, is hard.

hi cowsandbeef,

It is very doable and don't give up hope. Chantedsnicker has some very good advice. To get over anxiety, I w focus on achieving a good grade, on what I can achieve and not the possibility of failure. You get no-where if you just procrastinate.

Sometimes, what I do when I am having trouble getting started is that I just write in plain non-scientific English. I force myself to keep writing a simple flowing argument with minimal proofreading (I only fix spelling mistakes) until I have finished. I usually get 1000-2000 words of what is pure utter garbage but when I come back to it the next day I have something. It will be useless but you can look at and see what you need you need to do to fix. As you will have a basic argument with a semi-flowing structure and you can then edit it until it is better. It isn't efficient but it can sometimes overcome writer's block.

Goodluck! You can do it!

Depends on the funding method.

In the UK a lot of supervisors write a project title that fits their research and they get funding organized themselves for the project before advertising it. Then they are looking for a student to do that project where they are looking more at the student (Though I did this and was still asked to write a mini-proposal as part of the application). You have a bit less academic freedom but it means the money is there and usually, you have a good research question with some sort of plan.

Or you can write your own proposal and apply for funding yourself. But I don't know much about that method except it can be competitive.

I really followed the general advice from the internet for writing the proposal and interview.

Though I did my research and learned everything I could about the topic. I tried to understand every intricacy of the area and knew the key authors/papers. Plus I expressed my honest opinions about what I thought about all their work (in hindsight a lot of what I said was wrong) and how I could develop on their work.

In the interview, I also explained my rough plan (with gantt chart) for what I wanted to do and I have now found that my plan matched the plan proposed in the grant application. It was scary how similar the grant application was with my application proposal, considering they only advertised the title with no helpful blurb. So I knew the sub-topic quite well at the interview stage as it genuinely interested me and had similar expectations to the supervisor. Based on that the best way might be to immerse yourself in the topic when applying because you are going to have to do it anyway if you get it.

Though as pm133 did point out I am probably not the best person to give advice.

pm133, I am not saying that everyone who gets good grades is just regurgitating information and I know that a lot of people of who got good grades who did work really hard and totally deserved it. I apologise that I overgeneralized and not trying to demean people who got superb grades.

But there are people who just regurgitate information and had exam technique that inflated their grades despite them being oblivious. Grades are a good indication of how you will succeed in a PhD but you can succeed in undergrad with a completely different skill set to the one required to do well as a postgraduate. The potential supervisor should know that and is looking for the right skills/attitude as well as grades.

I didn't do much regurgitation as I was that guy that barely turned up after the first year, drank like a fish and literally rocked up to exams having barely done any work. Though I finally found a topic in my final year that actually interested me, worked my ass off and managed to impress the interviewers enough to give me a chance (and there were other applicants). I am not saying it is easy to get a PhD with a 2:1 but that is possible if you show the interviewers something else.

I don't know much about US application system and I am from the UK.

I didn't get a great 2:1 and only got an okay dissertation mark (again 2:1) with no conference paper (congrats on that) and I still got a fully funded PhD. From what I have been told, is that I nailed my application essay and my interview. So it is possible.

There are academic snobs who look down on all 2:1 students but if you get to an interview make it clear that you had a full time job which prevented you fully focusing on your degree. They will most likely take that into consideration but you will need to show them something else to compensate. In most courses, you get a good grade by just regurgitating information and good exam techniques and potential supervisors know that. What they are looking for is usually someone with good basic knowledge, hard working and have a clear logical thinking (I am oversimplifying this I know). So you need to show that in your application if you want to succeed.

So yes you can get a fully funded PhD.

Applying for a PhD can be tough and rejection is always hard. If you know want to do a PhD keep trying but there comes a point where the alternative is better and only you can decide when that is.

I don't know why you are being rejected (it could be anything) but have you asked after rejections for feedback? Did they give you anything precise? Are your references good? Have you tried collaborating with researchers anyway to get their attention/publications/reference? It sounds like you working hard to try and get your foot through the door but it might be something simple that is tripping you up. I would look at the basics again.

Though my honest first opinion is that IT is incredibly ageist. They are always after the next young superstar which means even in your late 20s you are seen as old. It might be an idea to try a few applications that have no years in it and none of your post-uni experience (keep the conference papers they are very good) so that they might think you have just graduated.

Goodluck!

If you cant think of ideas for your project you aren't well read in enough in the field you want to spend several years working in. Generally, when you read papers in your field you will find holes or areas that need further attention, thus giving you ideas. It is one of the reasons the US has coursework, it forces you to get an understanding of the field so that you can accurately choose a project.

Let's assume that you are well read and continue reading about your chosen fields but having trouble structuring an idea big enough for a PhD. So I am going to give an example of how to maybe come up with an idea where the field is sustainable agriculture and the methods have to involve fractal maths.

Start with a problem like sustainable agriculture, where we need to make more food with less damage to the environment. Take a point in the previous statement and elaborate, eg, how do we measure damage to the environment? We do further research into our intermediate question, eg, how we damage the environment? And we find and read about one small topic like soil erosion, which we find out is hard to measure on small scale but we can do it on a large scale. We then think how can we improve measurement techniques. Then after more reading, we come up with a hypothesis can, can you measure the bulk properties of soil and use that to find the microscopic properties of soil using fractal equations? We then do more reading to find out is it possible and if anyone else has done it, if you can answer yes and no respectively, you have a possible PhD idea.

I hope that method is clear on how to possibly form an idea. Good ideas dont appear out of nowhere and take a lot of effort to form. ie READ MORE!

PS: your two topics are very far apart and so my honest opinion is it will take a lot of work to make a connection

Hi williebald,

Not an expert in criminal justice/ forensic science/ US university system but I will give it a go.

Most courses say what their requirements are and there is usually the catch-all "or other relevant field". So I would check each of the courses yourself and give them a call/email to check. Though it is a science degree and as such having a law based bachelors course isn't going to look good. Forensic science is a science subject and they will be expecting you to have basic maths, problem-solving skills and maybe basic chemistry/biology. If you want to go down forensic science you will probably need to show the admissions staff you have the relevant skills as a pre-requisite, which can only be determined with a call.

If you are wondering what to do a masters in general. What topic interested you the most in your course? Explore that area and find a course that is relevant, as doing a masters that you are interested in always helps.This a personal decision and only you know what is right for you, so sit down and do alottttt of research to find what is right for you.

Nesrine, asking random people on the internet is not the best way to chose a thesis topic. Really you should have been reading the field and found a topic that interests you enough that you want to spend several years researching.

Though if you want sustainable agriculture topics, can you look at making lignocellulosic crops viable for biorefinery technology? As we need lots of cheap feed for biorefineries even if it is low sugar/high cellulose. Or find out with what to go with all the cow dung is produced (cough anaerobic digestion) and how changing the cow's diet could improve the value of the cow dung. Or how to reduce cows flatulence. Or can you create a way to speed up the genetic mutations of plants so that we can possibly get super drought-resistant wheat?

Or if you a fractal/math theme. Is there a mathematical model to determine the best route to till/sow a field with an autonomous tractor. As reducing the distance traveled /speed could reduce carbon emissions. Or can we determine the weight/size of a cow from aerial photos so that we can monitor on a large-scale the variables that affect cow growth? Or can you develop a model to estimate the amount of food in the field using aerial data to determine the optimum harvest date?

I have no idea about farming or agriculture but I gave it a go.

iiwanovic, that makes more sense now.

I wouldn't try to prove equivalence but do analysis of variance (ANOVA). It is where you are comparing how different variables affect the overall result. Ie take all your data with all the variables and analyze them together to get an overall equation. It means you can possibly look at interactions between the variables and thus determine the more important variables. It lets you use your entire data set at the same time and you can compare anything as long as it has the same output (ie yield or conversion).

I don't really understand the underlying theory so not going to try and explain it but I use DesignExpert to do all my multi-variable analysis. There are a few other software options like MiniTab or SPSS that do similar or you can try ANOVA from scratch.

Hope that helps

Hi lucedan,

Thanks that looks good, I will give it a try. Though it is sad that the grant databases are all subscription models when a lot of the money is from charities and government. I don't ask myself as my supervisor is always asking herself.

Literally, at the end of every meeting, my supervisor always says something like "I want to do X but don't have the money, I am applying to Y, do you know anywhere else I can try" to one of the other attendees. Usually, they suggest somewhere. She also regularly asks at the end of an email something like " do you know any new funding opportunities coming up?" Her attitude is to ask people after having a conversation about something else and generally, people are helpful.

I know in my university there are various funding co-ordinators who as part of their job actively look for money and send out weekly emails. Maybe you could find someone similar?