I don't think that this forum is exactly representative of PhDs anyway. Most people will post on a forum if they are having a problem - hence lots of negativity. It's rare someone who has never posted will want to start a thread on how great everything is, and even if you have posted before you probably don't want to rub in your success when others are saying they are having a hard time. Secondly, when people say "hate" that doesn't necessarily mean that they do truly "hate" it. Hate is just a nice short and easy to spell word that may over exaggerate but gets the point across. Thirdly, as some have said, some people aren't doing a PhD because it's what they always wanted to do, some just stumbled into it, others couldn't find another job and it's better than being unemployed. Hence they could "hate" it as much as anyone hates any job (and you hear "I hate my job" a lot). Yes people should quit if they truly hate it, but that's not easy without a job to go to or if you're 2.5 years in when you start hating it!

In all, I agree with your basic point that people shouldn't "hate" because it's very negative and doesn't really help anyone (very good advice in fact), but to be honest I think this board is unrepresentative of PhDs and the people that say "hate" don't always mean it anyway, so don't worry about it too much!

Hi Poppy,

I wouldn't worry about no news, academics are not famed for their speed of response and the HR at my uni is laughably bad. A follow up "prod" is perfectly reasonable, however I would wait until at least a week or two has passed. It may take them that long to interview others, so unless you know that the process is over (e.g. they interviewed everyone on the same day or you are the only applicant) I would wait 2 weeks from the date of your interview before sending a polite email to ask when you will find out.

If you really can't wait then maybe contact someone in charge of the admin (supervisors secretary?) just to ask how long the wait might be and how they will let you know. You could put that you meant to ask at the interview.

Good luck, I hope it comes back a positive! (up)

All the best

I very rarely get "supervision" per se. It tends to be informal chats at my desk. I would say that so much of this depends on the supervisor, with some very good and some very poor. I think one possible difference between the academic world and the "real world" (I worked in industry first too) is that in academia for a PhD it is very very difficult to change supervisor and people really want to get their PhD. They will therefore put up with a lot more than you would put up with from a normal boss whom you would complain about to his superior or alternatively change job. This in turn could lead to supervisors over time becoming less and less sympathetic because it doesn't affect them really. There seems to be very little in the way of grading of supervisors for instance, whereas most bosses would have some sort of review as to their performance with man management. Unless they know they are doing something wrong they won't change and so the cycle continues. Obviously you get some who realise the benefits of good man management and others who do not!

Though I agree that the system proposed by the independent that you've sited is unfair I think at some point a tough decision of "best of a bad lot" needs to be taken. You can never satisfy everyone and systems are very rarely truly "fair". After all, life's not fair so you're starting from an unfair starting point whatever you do!

As to what the "best of a bad lot" is, I'm not too sure. It would take a bit too much time and effort for me to work out my answer and at the moment I can't really affect the policy unfortunately. As far as PhDs go I don't think the system is broken. It just perhaps needs a tweak like more post docs and less PhDs.

I think that in the UK you are less likely to get positive reactions purely because of our national psyche! Compared to Americans we do tend to see the negative more. I remember a lecturer in my undergrad telling us about why he thought American companies would win more work when bidding against British companies. He said that the American approach when they saw a problem was to react with "Sure, we can sort that out!" regardless of whether they thought they really could, whereas the British response was to say "Well, that might cause issues..." again, regardless of how tricky the problem was!

Having said that I wouldn't expect exclusively negative comments unless there really wasn't anything positive to say. How was your supervisor before you took leave? I wouldn't read too much into one meeting. He/she may have just been having a really bad day for instance or may have felt that you needed a kick start to your work again. I would wait till you meet up again and see what the reaction is to the work you do in the mean time. To be honest I don't remember my supervisor having ever given out very much praise, but I know that that's just how he is.

Hope this helps a bit.(up)

I disagree with a graduate tax. Surely if being a graduate helps you by giving you a better wage then you are already giving a proportion of that via regular taxation? If you don't earn more than you would of done then the degree has not helped you financially, so why should you pay out any more than anyone else?

To me, what we have ended up with now is essentially a graduate tax. They give you a loan that you have to repay via your wages practically forever once you get above a certain wage. Is there much difference between this and giving you a grant and then taxing the money back?

Thanks for a really interesting subject Indoctorate - it's a great set of questions. My two pence:

Free Education: I think that people should not have to pay tuition fees to do a degree, however, there should be fewer people doing them. Many people do a degree because they don't know what they want to do, then end up working in a job that makes no use of their degree. This seems a bit of a waste, though I fully understand why people would do it. I don't know how to progress to this from the current situation however. For a start there would need to be far more opportunities for those without a degree. I think many companies advertise for people with a degree when it's really not necessary. Perhaps more apprenticeships and train while you work schemes? The Scottish system is all well and good, except for the xenophobia. That is that it is free for any student from Scotland OR THE EU, but not for people from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. This has always struck me as a bit wrong. Fine to be free for students from Scotland and no where else, but free to everyone except those that live in a different bit of the same country is a bit off.

No Council tax: To be honest I like the fact that students don't pay this as I feel it helps take a very large chunk out of a students outgoings when they already have minimal income, however if I look at it logically it doesn't make sense. Surely students use as much of the council's capability as the next person, if not more!

Hours worked: I did engineering so I had a lot of hours and I had to work them. You do hear of (usually more "arty") courses having minimal lectures. The least I heard was a course in Brighton with 2 hours a week! Obviously there is work outside this, but overall you would expect for a student to have to work at least 35 hours a week (including home study), otherwise it's not even approaching "full time study". For PhDs the same holds true. You should work at least 35 hours otherwise you are part time (obviously this is fine if you are a part time PhD).

What Job are PhDs doing?: They should be researching into an area that their funding has given them money for (assuming they are funded) in order to increase the scope of human knowledge. I disagree with anyone that argues that the research should be of itself "useful" as often these things become useful at a later date. A good example is lasers. When they were discovered the scientists just said "um, that's kind of cool, I wonder if we'll ever find a use". Nowadays there are lasers absolutely everywhere, from CD players to DIY measuring tools to laser cutters in machine shops. I would argue that in general a science PhD is more beneficial to the economy than a humanities PhD and so with the cuts (right or wrong though they may be) I feel that humanities should bear the brunt. That is not to say that humanities PhDs are useless or of less worth - the argument I present is purely financial. Once the economy is back (if ever!) then thee humanities PhDs that were cut should be brought back.

Should you be grateful for your funding? Yes, of course, in the same way that you should be grateful to have a job with a salary. The funding is there for someone to do a job (i.e. research). In that respect a PhD is like a job. I think they're more like a job than a lot of people realise. Many people in "real jobs" have work that taxes them mentally, often requires a lot of time and is stressful, others have easier jobs and it's the same with PhDs - Some are harder than others.

Thanks for reading it all, I reserve the right to change my mind if people convince me otherwise!

Probably no-one can really say, it rather depends on what you do and what you want from your life outside work as well. You could look up happiness measures or something if you like but to be honest that probably wouldn't help much either. What do you want from the country you live in? Why does it have to be Europe?

Just to third (or fourth or fifth, I haven't counted) Delta, I'm doing a PhD in a general topic I have a real interest in but in a specific part that I have little interest in. I work 9-5 as well and feel I am doing as well as many others.

The trouble is that if people compare their PhD to someone else's PhDs, that is like comparing apples with oranges. Some require far more time, others require incredible leaps of genius and very little time, some require neither time nor genius and some require both (PhDs not apples and oranges).

The more I read these boards the more I feel that PhDs are actually very similar to "normal" jobs (hear me out on this!). Take the next few bullet points and replace job with PhD and I think they still work:

- Some people love their job and some hate their job
- Some people work long hours, others just do 9-5
- Some people do the job they always wanted to, others kind of "fell into it"
- Some people work for the job satisfaction others work purely for the reward
- Some people get very stressed by their jobs others are very laid back about it
- Some people can't hack their job and so change job, others stay in the same job for years
- Some people get on very well with their boss at their job others hate them with a passion.

etc, etc

My point is that we often compare our PhDs or say you have to have certain qualities to do a PhD, but actually that's a lot like saying you have to have certain qualities to do a general job! So if Delta or I don't have a massive interest in our PhDs then that doesn't mean that someone else is not allowed to and vice versa. Just because one person puts in extra hours all the time does not mean that everyone has to.

I'm not having a go at anyone via this, just pointing out the futility of comparing one's PhD with anothers. The grass often looks greener on the other side, that doesn't mean it is.

For "hardest part of my PhD"...

There were a number of times where I had to overcome difficult problems, but one that stands out is x. [Choose any part that was hard even if it didn't stand out massively]. However, by doing y and z [make these things that exemplify your skills e.g. by consulting with my professor and working through the problem as a team] I was able to progress past this etc.

As the previous poster says, have a stock answer waiting for the question. Do the same for any other common questions.

You could be a little more smarmy I guess and say something like "There were quite a few parts of my PhD that were challenging, but then that's why I undertook it as I like to be challenged" then add the bit above.

I often hear people ask "what do I do if they ask me something I don't know!". The answer is say "I don't know but I could easily find out and get back to you" or something similar. Lots of people end up trying to answer something they don't know the answer to and tie themselves in knots.

Obviously you need to prepare by looking over the job spec and by ensuring you are up to date with the relevant advances in the field/business (you may have researched some of them, which would help!).

Remember to have a set of questions to ask them. You can write these down if you like, they won't mind you saying "I have some questions written down if that's ok?" and then you get them out your bag/pocket. Stops you from forgetting them. There's usually a point in interviews where they ask "do you have anything to ask us/me".

Good questions:

"Where do you see my role progressing to in 1 year/2 years/5 years?"
"I've read about your work in x, will I have the opportunity to work in that field?"
"If I was to be offered the job, what reading material would you suggest I read in preparation?"

The other thing that is hard to do if you don't naturally do it, is to appear very confident and above all, get on well with the interviewer.

Hope some of this helps.

Probably a lot of people doing PhDs (though not all) have never worked in a job outside academia (aside from something to pay the bills). For those where this is the case I would suggest that perhaps people are thinking that when they turn up at work they should instantly assume a position of high importance/pay/everything else. Unfortunately this will very very rarely be the case. Whilst I am not suggesting anyone take up a graduate position (there's no way you should even consider it) I would say that people need to realise that in industry you need to prove yourself before you get the perks. I realise that doing 3-4 years+ of a PhD feels a lot like you have proved yourself, but PhD work is very different to non-academia, plus non-academics often don't understand what it takes to get a PhD. This may seem unfair, but it is a fact. Hence, don't expect the job you apply for to be all singing and all dancing. What you SHOULD expect (and can ask at interview time) is that there will be opportunities for progression. This is a big thing, especially in smaller companies. It is not unknown for people to go from new employee to being pretty high up the chain in just a year or two. The important thing is that you need to prove you can contribute within the business environment, not just achieve within the academic environment.

I appreciate the above won't help everyone (especially those told they are over qualified) but hopefully those who may think that a non-academic job they are applying for is not going to be challenging enough can see that it is possible to change what your job is very quickly if you show aptitude, without actually changing your job!

Sorry if I'm telling my granny how to suck eggs so to speak.

Adam