hi
as far as i know, it means you won't be eligible, unless you have something else that shows you are qualified (relevant work experience for example). the whole point of ESRC recognition of MSc/MA courses is that they then don't have to check every course individually to see if it is up to the standard they have. this is different if your MA is abroad.
you could still apply for a 1+3 award, that would mean you would do another MA or MSc before doing a 3-year PhD.

well, that's an old topic revived... interesting!

for me it is an issue... just finishing my first year, i'm 31, i study reproductive medicine (social science perspective) so i am very aware of things like that the chance to conceive (with or without medical help) halfs every year after age 35... somehow i think it is not a good idea to plan on having a baby immediately after finishing the PhD (go through all that education and then just have a baby?!)... so when? how? do i need to decide between either the PhD or a family???
if the PhD were a job (as it is in some places - see other threads) it would be normal to take (paid!) pregnancy leave... but if you are slaving away unpaid or on a stipend, you can't without earning frowns...

i'm around, too. am so most days although i don't post that often. i just try to restrict myself on forum time.

my funding application is going to be decided tonight. everyone, please send some positive, generous-feeling vibes towards switzerland!

Funded PhD students in places like Germany or Switzerland usually don't get stipends/studentships, but rather they get WAGES. So, when you go to a bank or you need to give financial security you just provide your payslip. you also get unemployment benefits based on your last income if you can't find a job after your PhD. You can talk about your previous work experience when you apply for jobs because you have officially been working (on your PhD project).

I am sorry I am going on a bit here, and off-topic too. Sometimes I just get so annoyed. What is the real reason why we must be identified as students? It just makes life harder for us, in many practical, or every-day issues.

Sorry to hear about your troubles Pamw!
Sometimes I really wonder if part of all the problems we PhD people have is that we are called - and treated as - students. While WE know that our experience is quite different than that of undergraduates, and that our financial situation is different, and that the things we do are quite like 'work', our daily hours quite like professionals' hours, etc. ... we are treated so much like students, our money is not real money, what we do is termed 'just studying', our qualifications are not appreciated. Maybe many things would be easier if we were just called differently - like 'doctoral candidate', 'doctoral researcher', in some cases 'research assistant', or similar.

hi maydude,
some very successful people (professors, really several different ones) have told me that it is actually better NOT to be totally tied up with your research topic - or 'married to your PhD'. because if you are, then every setback to your research - and these will inevitably happen - is a setback to yourself, and you will never accept anything to be good enough, you will identify with your PhD and thus make it very tension-loaded.
while i see this point i also agree with what the others have said - there will be boring times and if you aren't at least a little interested, it will be very hard to keep going.
my personal choice would be to go for the project which interests me more. but then, this has landed me in a very uncomfortable situation, funding-wise. so think about it all very carefully!

or something you can do is ask what they did in a similar situation in the past.

hm that is a standard problem about talking to people (qual and quant): what people say they do or would do is not necessarily what they really do. that's where experiments and observation come in handily (though they have their own problems); but this is probably not an option for you. perhaps a quasi-experiment, if you have data from another country where this has already been introduced and you can show that something was different before and after the introduction of this thing.

perhaps a way to approach this problem would be to confront your subjects not with abstract questions but with scenarios. the problem remains, but it gets more concrete, so you have a higher chance of getting from people what they really might do.

oh dear, radicalann, it sounds a bit like you are upset about what's happened plus you are upset that it makes you upset. don't be! (i know that's easy to say). upsetting things have happened... so be upset, rant about it, complain and whine... it's really unfair, isn't it!


go get the hugs you need (virtual hug from me) and hang on in there. things are sure to look up soon!

if it is anything like the ESRC i think the paperwork should go through the council in july, and reach you end of july/start of august.

Hi Rick,
i've been thinking about your ideas (why do i like thinking about other people's projects so much more than about mine?)...
the approach of asking many small questions in the questionnaire and only one big overall question at the end has the goal, if i understand correctly, of gently introducing your interviewees to the topic of which they don't know anything yet. i think this is a good idea and might well work, but there might also be other solutions to your problem (how to introduce them to an unkown thing without boring them). like, you could produce a little film to show them, which explains the basics in a fun way. or make a interactive homepage.
just thinking aloud...

hey humanbeing, with saying vague i was referring to the question. meaning, the question would have been more precise (less vague) if sourapples had mentioned, for example, in which field s/he is, who exactly decides on the continuing funding, why s/he has doubts about it, etc. there is probably not a general answer, so the general question is hard to answer!
as to the rest, i agree with you, that it is a shame how PhD students are often treated.

i don't think that publications are needed to get your PhD.
however:
- having some of your work published means it has been peer-reviewed and that might make the viva easier.
- from a careers perspective we were advised that if you've finished your thesis after three years but don't have any publications yet, it can in many cases be a good idea to not submit your thesis right away, but rather work on some publications first and only later submit your (already finished) thesis. simply because it is better to take four years for your PhD and then get a job, than take three years, be unemployed and unaffiliated for a year while you write publications, and then get a job.
that's what i heard, anyway.

thanks rick, yes i think it is interesting. as is yours!

well i am researching this general question through looking at a specific case. this will be IVF in one country. i will interview physicians and people undergoing treatment and will do some observation in clinics, and will use policy texts and available statistical data.

you are right that the general question is to huge to answer. i will just try to address it through looking at one small area of it

as said before, you're going to have to evaluate and decide for yourself. just wanted to say that i wouldn't worry too much about starting from day one again. if you are getting three years of funding, that will just mean overall you do your PhD in four years (as most people do) and be funded from now to the end.

or would it be in a totally different topic?