TreeofLife: I believe there is essentially a good deal of truth behind what I said.

I was fortunate enough to spend over a year in the States doing research in an institution there, so do have the benefit of exposure to their system. I do not have a downer on their system inasmuch as the quality of PhDs they are turning out. I do however have an issue with job postings that stipulate requirement for a PhD, for which the holder must have spent at least five years studying.

Whether or not it is a good thing for people to specialise at school after age 16 (as in the UK) or continue studying a broad spectrum of subjects (as in the US) is open to debate and is probably dependent on what someone wants to go on and do after leaving high school. I would suggest the US system is not that conducive to preparing students for entry to university degree-level study and on the basis of the shocking lack of [scientific/biological] knowledge I saw in some of the first year undergrads there, I would stand by what I said. Having said that, although I did my A-levels many years ago (Hint: I'm old enough to have done O-levels at 16), I did enjoy a relatively un-traumatic transition (academically, at least) between A-levels and university so think I was well prepared. Conversely judging by what I have encountered with first year undergraduates at my institution over the last few years, they have found the transition between A-levels and university to be a shock, and I am presuming this is the result of the year-on-year increasing "easiness" of the A-level exams.

Nonetheless TreeofLife, you make some interesting points. Perhaps a greater degree of structuring of UK PhDs - which I believe is slowly happening - is the answer? But I still think 5-6 years is too long.

PS: ae7 - sorry for hijacking your thread!

Hi ae7,

If it were an academic (postdoc) job, I'd say indicate you've got a PhD and qualify it with "viva pending" elsewhere on the application. Frankly, if you fail the viva, you wouldn't be taking it anyway. Certainly in my school, it was expected that you'd be applying for post-docs even in advance of submission and generally, considered almost a certainty that people at that stage would pass.

For a non-academic job, if a PhD isn't required, I'd put "PhD student" as your status, as technically, you still are. You can give a projected completion date elsewhere on your application. Try figuring it out, once you pass your viva on condition of corrections... (still a student, according to the Cambridge University website, which is the only reference I can find to it).

For the record, the Americans don't seem to fully get our system. The deal is that in the UK, we tend to specialise earlier. They're still studying God-knows-how-many-subjects at high school at 18, therefore their bachelors degrees are like UK ordinary degrees... so they're still playing catch-up when they get to doctoral level. Unfortunately, it tends to get viewed as "Brits only spend three or four years doing their doctorates, so their PhD's are worth less than ours". That is BS (no pun intended)!

As there are 168 hours in a week - and even the best of us have to sleep for some of them - anything close to approaching 100 applications in that time is not possible... at least applications of anything like the requisite quality. Also more to the point, in terms of postdoctoral positions, as we are all pretty specific in what we've done, I'm still not entirely sure where people are finding these posts... unless they're just firing off CVs and covering letters to any post that would fit under the same general academic umbrella and not being unduly concerned with the "Essential Requirements" bit of the job description.

I think the anecdotal nature of threads such as this can be supportive - it's nice to know one is not alone - but some claims and statements can be somewhat exaggerated and counter-productive and demoralising for everyone else.

The academic job market is a peculiar one. The application process seems to move very slowly. I had an interview not long before Christmas, for a job I'd applied for nearly two months earlier and given up on. Also, I have a few jobs that I applied for on-line via recruitment portals some time ago, where my application is still "open" - i.e. I haven't been told I'm not being considered further. This doesn't really help, because people looking for jobs always want (and should reasonably be able to expect) answers fairly quickly, for obvious reasons. Two months+ isn't reasonably quickly.

You do raise some good points though, UpandAtom (surely a particle physicist?!). The major thing I took home from what you wrote actually, is "always be nice to PIs after initial rejection - you might be remembered and be offered something else". I'm glad you've found something and wish you luck in your new position.

Unsurprisingly, this is a loooonnnnnnng thread. But it is also difficult in a sense, as there are clearly a lot of people in this position, in different disciplines and different places. I guess we're all united in one thing, but of course, there are variables with regard to speciality and location.

Skimming through this thread, there are two specific points I'd like to make:-
1. Most job recruitment agencies are self-serving. I have approached several on-line, and only one has bothered to get in contact with anything other than an automated reply. You have to bear in mind that any agency ultimately does what is best for itself. As it is clearly an employers market and the employers pay them, they are not going to bust a gut for individual applicants when they probably have two-dozen on their books suitable for every given job; and
2. it never ceases to amaze me the number of threads, blogs, forums, newspaper articles, etc on this subject, that are packed with people saying how many hundreds of job applications they are knocking out every week. Firstly, where are they finding all these jobs advertised? And secondly, given that the dogma - most especially at post-PhD level - is that every application has to be researched and tailored to individual employers, how do you have the time? I certainly do not wish to cause anyone here any offence, but if you are sacrificing quality on the altar of quantity, can you be too surprised that you're getting lots of rejection letters or nothing in reply?

On point #2, I'd be grateful of enlightenment.

PS: Biological science, post-successful viva, England.

Hi Lindalou,

Speaking personally, when I was writing my thesis, I sent my supervisors chapters as I went along, then the whole product. Therefore I had a pretty good idea well in advance of my viva that I had a product that should pass. In fact, they wouldn't let anyone submit a thesis in our school, unless it was up to spec.

I must admit, I thought such checks and balances were pretty universal nowadays (at least in the UK, though not sure where you are). What has your supervisor said about your work? They should really be on the ball and be giving you proper and timely feedback. If you've had no feedback, you need to get it. Despite the elitist and nonchalant act a lot of academics put on, supervisors do have a very real interest in their PhD students passing. It is nonetheless natural to feel nervous about the viva. After all, the result of three or four years of demanding work is decided in just a few hours. But you probably have a gut feeling (?). And if the thesis is good enough and YOU did the work, you'll pass.

Montanita: That's extremely disturbing. I'm tempted to hypothesise that your supervisor was blowing smoke to spur you into action from the outset. It's not something I've ever heard of, though I wouldn't be entirely surprised to learn it does happen in some quarters. But I guess that's why a number of countries have "open vivas", i.e. the public can come and watch!

Hi Littleowl,

This sounds eerily similar to my recent experience. I had my PhD viva scheduled for a day in December 2013, and then less than two weeks before that was offered an interview for a lectureship the very next day! Complete surprise... I was asked to give a 10 minute presentation in the field - not on teaching methodology, but an example short lecture I might deliver. However, following that, they asked me loads of questions on teaching.

I had had quite a lot of teaching (lab demonstrating), student supervision and assessment experience, but only about half a day's tutelage in my first year regarding "teaching methods". Not sure if you've had any, but if yes, you can draw on that. During my interview, I was asked a lot about teaching strategies and initiatives I would introduce, so felt a little out of my depth.

HOWEVER, during a presentation, YOU are in charge. And it is just a 10 minute talk, so you would only really be able to get two or three main points across. Draw on any teaching tuition you've had, and people always love anecdotes reflecting experience. Project yourself - that's what they want to see... and if the job's right for you, you'll get it!

I wish you luck.

Dear Emalevolence,

When I read your opening line, I thought "must reply" then realised how many replies you'd already got.

I would agree with most of what others have written. I would add that you shouldn't look at it as "I only got these grades..." but "I got three A levels". But yes, largely irrelevant now if your first degree subject is directly relevant to your proposed PhD speciality, as you have what is regarded as a good bachelors degree.

So just put the subjects down. If they ask you about it at interview, you can explain it to your captive audience then. But they won't. Generally, it's never wise to draw attention to something on a job/PhD application that doesn't improve it. As the old addage goes: "Never give someone enough rope to hang you with".

Hi Dotdottung,

Firstly, congratulations!

Secondly, you did not state what discipline you are in, but it sounds like you have the right idea. Make sure you know the field in which you have an interest and, of course, what YOU have written and want to do. Be clear WHY you want to do a PhD. And it sounds like common sense, but treat it like any other [job] interview, i.e. dress smart, be punctual, polite to everyone, etc.

Thirdly, do not forget that any interview is a two-way process. Hopefully, you'll get a tour, in which case take any opportunity you can to speak to other PhD students in the school and most especially, those supervised by your proposed supervisor. I have just finished my PhD (subject to minor corrections), but one thing I read on these sorts of sites four-odd years ago was make sure you get as much information on quality of supervisor as you can. THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING! I got it wrong and have spent much of the last few years suffering as a result.

Hope this helps. Good luck!

Firstly, I would take particular issue with bewildered's statement "... social science PhD students are more independent than in science". I am a biochemist (PhD obtained, subject to minor corrections). Not wishing to initiate or imply interdisciplinary fractiousness, I would say that I personally had very little valuable input from my supervisor, and have the satisfaction of knowing that I achieved what I achieved through my own intellect, tenacity, self-motivation, etc., etc., etc.... Yes, PhD projects in the experimental sciences do tend to be pre-proposed, but that is largely as a result of specialist methodological constraints.

Regarding LottLin's thread, I think it is generally the norm that supervisors are included on publications, regardless of discipline. I personally resent it slightly (see above), but your supervisor would have given you the opportunity to embark on this journey and probably, have gained the funding of which you are currently beneficiary (forgive me if you're not!). Acknowledging that there are good and bad supervisors, one thing that unites disciplines is that there is a largely "being exploited" aspect of doing a PhD and very few supervisors are doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. What is important is that you get first authorship on what you publish. That's what counts. If your supervisor is funny about that, then you should start being bolshy.

Have you asked your supervisor outright? What are other people in your school/department doing?